DF 
277 
B32 



II ■ 

■ 



il 









■ 

■ 














* y • °* c* 









< 








>y^ 





*> 








A*^ 

V ^ 



THE 



FIVE POST-KLEISTHENEAN TRIBES 



BY 



/ 

FRED ORLANDO BATES 

FELLOW OF CORNELL* UNIVERSITY 



THESIS PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY 
FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 
JUNE, 1898. 



ITHACA, N. Y. 

ANDRUS & CHURCH 

1808 



Copyright, 1898, 
By CORNEU, UNIVERSITY 



ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 



"& 



iOQ^'M) ITHACA, N. Y 

*I^^ ' "• PRESS OF ANDRUS & C 



PREFACE. 



The subject of the post-Kleisthenean tribes is one which, so 
far as I know, has never been treated as a whole. It is only 
within recent years that sufficient material has been brought to- 
gether to enable one to determine much that is certain in regard 
to them. This is especially true of Antigonis and Demetrias 
which were in existence such a short period — a little over a cent- 
ury — that a very limited number of monuments throwing light on 
their history has been preserved to us. Though there is no 
treatise covering all five tribes, a few articles dealing with special 
phases of this question are to be found in various periodicals. A 
brief review of the most recent and important of these will give 
some idea of what has already been accomplished in this field. 

Dittenberger 1 investigated the question of Ptolemais, Attalis, 
and Hadrianis, with special reference to the demes constituting 
them and the method pursued in re-allotting demes to form the 
new tribes. He noticed that in the case of Hadrianis, eleven of 
its old demes were taken one each from the first eleven of the 
twelve tribes already in existence. He conjectured that the 
twelfth one, Oinoe, was taken from Attalis, formerly the twelfth 
tribe. Starting with this clue he found that the same principle 
could be applied in a general way to the other two tribes, Ptole- 
mais and Attalis. He therefore concluded that each of the old 
tribes contributed a given quota, usually one deme, towards the 
formation of the new one. When Dittenberger wrote this article 
it was universally believed that Ptolemais was created in honor of 
Ptolemy Philadelphus, as stated by Pausanias, and hence prior to 
247 B. C. Historical evidence pointed to a date not later than 
265 B.C. 

Beloch 2 was the first to formally discredit this general belief in 
regard to the date of Ptolemais. He held that Ptolemais was 
created in honor of Ptolemy Euergetes (247-222 B.C.). On 



1 Hermes IX. (1875) p. 385 ff. 

2 Neue Jahrbiicher 129 (1884), p. 481 ff. 



iv Preface. 

historical grounds he determined that the exact date was some- 
where between 229 and 222 B.C. In this article he apparently 
assumes that after Ptolemais was created, the two tribes, Antigonis 
and Demetrias, were merged in one, for in the archon lists for the 
8th and nth years, according to. his arrangement of them, he 
classes Atene under Antigonis. 

The latest view in regard to the date of Ptolemais is that ex- 
pressed by Kohler in the Supplement to Vol. II of the Corpus In- 
scriptionum Atticarum. 1 He maintains that the tribe was created 
after 222 B.C. during the reign of Ptolemy Philopator (222-205 

B.C.). 

Neither Dittenberger nor Beloch devoted any special attention 
to Antigonis and Demetrias. This study was reserved for Kirch- 
ner 2 who tried to determine what demes were allotted to the two 
tribes. The article is remarkable for the number of demes which 
the author apparently discovers as belonging to Antigonis and 
Demetrias, — ten to the former and nine to the latter. In some cases, 
however, the evidence adduced is far from conclusive. Kirchner 
furthermore proceeds upon the theory that a deme may belong to 
more than one tribe at the same time. Such an order of things is 
prima facie unnatural and, I believe, not in accord with the facts. 

Thus it will be seen that there is still room for investigation in 
this field. It is the purpose of this treatise to collect and interpret 
the evidence which bears on this question. Because of the unre- 
liability of much of the testimony of ancient writers on this sub- 
ject, the bulk of the material has been taken from inscriptions. 
Only when these fail have the statements of the writers been 
taken as a guide, and then with some reservation. It is not ex- 
pected that all the difficulties will be satisfactorily removed, but 
it is hoped that the investigation may contribute to a more accurate 
knowledge of the subject. Whether that object has been attained 
must be left to the reader to decide. 

Accompanying the special discussion of each deme a table is 
added containing a chronological arrangement of the inscriptions 
in which the deme is mentioned in such a connection that its tribe 
is indicated or determinable from the context. These inscriptions 

1 See his note to No. 385 c. 

2 Rheinisches Museum 47 (1892), p. 550 ff. 



Preface. v 

are generally taken from the Corpus Inscriptionum Atticarum 
and in view of their number the usual abbreviation, C. I. A., has 
generally been omitted wherever there is occasion for citing this 
work. All citations, then, not self-explanatory must be under- 
stood as referring to this publication. In cases where the reference 
is duplicated, either in the same inscription or in another, only 
one citation is made. The statements in regard to the topography 
of each deme are, for the most part, necessarily dependent on 
the investigations of scholars in this particular field, most promi- 
nent among whom are Milchhofer and L,6per. 

In the matter of dating the inscriptions, I have relied on the 
list of archons given by Mr. W. S. Ferguson (The Athenian 
Secretaries, Cornell Studies, Vol. VII., pp. 50-58) for the period 
307/6-96/5 B.C. inclusive. For other periods I have followed 
Schoffer's list of archons in his article Archontes in Pauly-Wissowa 
Real-Encyclopadie, Vol. II. (1896), p. 565 ff. Whereno archon's 
name or other indication of the exact year is given in the inscrip- 
tion, I have accepted in general the judgment of the editors of 
the Corpus Inscriptionum Atticarum. 

For handy reference Appendixes" are added showing the official 
order of tribes at different periods and their constituent demes, 
together with their demotika. The redistribution of demes is 
also indicated. 

To Professor B.I. Wheeler, of Cornell University, for guidance 
and suggestions during this investigation, and for kindly criticism 
both of manuscript and proof, I wish here to recognize my obli- 
gation. I am especially indebted to Mr. W. S. Ferguson, Fellow 
of Cornell University, for valuable counsel and assistance. I 
would also thank Professor G. P. Bristol, of Cornell University, 
for his aid in reading the manuscript and proof. 

Ithaca, N. Y., June 27, 1898. F. O. B. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



PAGE 

Chapter I. — Antigonis and Demetrias i 

$ I. History and Chronology I 

$ 2. Demes of Antigonis 6 

\ 3. Denies of Demetrias 18 

Chapter II. — Ptolemais : 27 

\ 1. Evidence for the Existence of Thirteen Tribes 27 

g 2. Evidence for Dating the Creation of Ptolemais 28 

\ 3. Tribal Order of Ptolemais 32 

\ 4. Demes of Ptolemais 32 

Chapter III.— Attalis 46 

I 1. History and Chronology 46 

\ 2. Demes of Attalis 46 

Chapter IV. — Hadrianis 54 

I 1. History and Chronology 54 

\ 2. Demes of Hadrianis 54 

Appendix A. — Official Order of Tribes 63 

Appendix B. — Lists of the Demes of Each Tribe 64 

Appendix C. — Bibliography 69 



CHAPTER I. 

ANTIGONIS AND DEMETRIAS. 

§ i. History and Chronology. 

Prior to the reforms of Kleisthenes, about 508 B. C, the citizens 
of Attica were divided into four tribes called reAewres, ^O^A^tcs, 
'ApyaSeis, and AiyiKopets 1 from the sons of Ion. 2 One of the most im- 
portant of Kleisthenes' changes in the Athenian constitution 
was to increase the number of the tribes from four to ten. 3 These 
ten tribes had their names from the legendary personages of early 
Athenian history, viz. : Erechtheus, Aigeus, Pandion, Leos, 
Akamas, Oineus, Kekrops, Hippothoon, Aias, and Antiochos. 
The tribes existed for two centuries until Demetrios Poliorketes in 
307 B. C. liberated Athens from Macedonian rule. In honor of 
their deliverer and his father, Antigonos, the Athenians added two 
new tribes, Antigonis and Demetrias, which, in this order, were, 
placed at the head of the list of tribes. That they were instituted 
before the Athenian official year 307/6 B. C. 4 is proved by the rela- 
tion of month and prytany shown in IV. 2, 240 b. The date of this 
psephisma is Maimakterion (the fifth month of the Athenian calen- 
dar) 307/6 B. C. It was passed in the fifth prytany not earlier than 
the 21st day. With ten tribes the 21st of the fifth prytany would 
regularly come on the 18th of Poseideon (the sixth month of the 
Athenian calendar), whereas with twelve tribes the date of any 
given prytany regularly agrees with the date of the month which 
corresponds numerically. Unfortunately the date of the month is 
lost, but the agreement of month and prytany is sufficient to show 
that we are now under the system of twelve tribes. Furthermore, 
Antigonis held the seventh prytany in this year. 5 

Pollux VIII. 109. 2 Herod. V. 66. 3 Arist., Ath. Pol., Chap. 21. 

^he date 306/5 B.C. given in Hermann-Thumser, Lehrbuch der griechischen 
Staatsaltertiimer, \ 135, is based on a wrong identification of the archon's name 
in II. 238. 

5 Cf. II. Add. Nov. 320 b. the date of which should be 307/6 B.C. instead of 
279/8 B.C. {cf. note to IV. 2, 240 b). 



The Five Post-Kleisthenean Tribes. 



These facts indicate that the official recognition of the two new 
tribes preceded the triumphal entry of Demetrios into the city in 
September of this year. 1 

Inasmuch as various archon lists serve to indicate the demes be- 
longing to Antigonis and Demetrias, and to show the chronology not 
only of those tribes but also of Ptolemais, it will be convenient for the 
reader to have them before him at the outset. They will, therefore, 
be given at this point. In these lists I have chosen to give the 
name of the deme rather than the demotikon, though the latter would 
appear in the inscriptions. The tribe to which each derne belongs 
and its official order are added opposite the name of the deme. Be- 
sides this, the year in which each board officiated is indicated. 

Archon Lists. 

In CIA. II 859. 



(1). 237/6 B.C. 2 


(2). 236/5 B.C. 


Aio/xcta, Aigeis IV. 
'A^a/avai, Oineis VIII. 
Up6(nra\ra, Akamantis VII. 


TlaWrjvri, Antiochis XII. 
Ilatavta, Pandionis (?) V. 
®v\rj, Oineis VIII. 


KoAwvos, Aigeis IV. 
ILuavta, Pandionis V. 
AtvKovorj, Leontis VI. 
'AxepSovs, Hippothontis X. 
"Pafxvovs, Aiantis XI. 
\AAa>7r£/aj, Antiochis XII. 


KvSaOrjvaLov, Antigonis I. 
^rjyaia, Aigeis (?) IV. 
Kikvvvol, Akamantis VII. 
<£Ava, Kekropis IX. 
'AvaKata, Hippothontis X. 
&d\r)pov, Aiantis XI. 



(3). 235/4 B.C. 

Otovj Hippothontis X. 
*A<£iSi/a, Aiantis XI. 
®pTa, Oineis VIII. 



(4). 234/3 B.C. 
^cf>r]TT6<s, Akamantis VII. 



Ktjttos, Leontis VI, 



Ko0co/a8ai, Demetrias II. 
AafX7TTpai, Erechtheis III. 
ILuavta, Pandionis V. 
ILuonSai, I^eontis VI. 
&\vd, Kekropis IX. 
*Afx<$>iTpoTrrj, Antiochis XII. 



AaparTpaL, Antigonis I. 
®opai, Demetrias II. 
IIa/xy8a)Ta8at, Erechtheis III. 
®\va, Kekropis IX. 
KoV/oos, Hippothontis X. 
'Pa/xvoijs, Aiantis XI. 



1 See Holm, History of Greece, Kng. Trans. Vol. IV. p. 44. 

2 In each list the demes of the six thesmothetai are separated from the demes 
of the other archons by a dotted line. 



Antigonis and Demetrias. 



(5). 233/2 B.C. 

^,Kafx(3oivt8aL, Leontis VI. 
KetptaSat, Hippothontis X. 
AafnrTpai, Antig. or Erech. I or III. 

©opou, Demetrias II. 
nXuOeta, Aigeis IV. 
Kt/cvvva, Akamantis VII. 
'A^apvat, Oineis VIII. 
®\vd, Kekropis IX. 
'AAtoTre/o; Alltiocllis XII. 

(7). 230/29 B.C. 



'AW, Aigeis IV. 
nreAea, Oineis VIII. 
'Afxaiavreta, Hippothontis X. 
Olvor}, Aiantis XI. 

(9). 228/7 B.C. 

"AAwTre/oj, Antiochis XIII. 
KoXAvtos, Aigeis IV. 
"Pafivovs, Aiantis XII. 

AeipaStojTat, Antigonis (?) I. 



(11). 224/3 B.C. 

'Epx«*> Aigeis IV. 
KzcfxiXij, Akamantis VIII. 
ILuovi&u, Leontis VI. 

'Ar-qvri, Demetrias II. 
^vfSptSai, Erechtheis III. 
'KyyeKrj, Pandionis V. 
"A<fu8va, Ptolemais VII. 
Ilt^os, Kekropis X. 
$d\r)pov, Aiantis XII. 



(6). 232/1 B.C. 

v A<£iSm, Aiantis XI. 
e l7T7rorop:a8at, Demetrias II. 
En-ea, Antiochis (?) XII. 

Tapyr)TTo<;, Antigonis I. 
Ilepyao-^ Erechtheis III. 
"AOfxovov, Kekropis IX. 
Karros, L,eontis VI. 

n , . 



(8). 229/8 B.C. 

"Or}, Oineis IX. 
2,v7ra\r)TTo<s, Kekropis X. 
'Arrji/77, Demetrias II. 

AWaXtSai, Antigonis I. 
'Ava/cata, Hippothontis XI. 
$tW&u, Aigeis IV. 
Kt]tt6<s, I^eontis VI. 
AtytXta, Ptolemais VII. 
TpiKopwQos, Aiantis XII. 

(10). 225/4 B.C. 



<&a\r)pov 



Aiantis XII. 



Avd<f)\.varTo<;, Antiochis XIII. 

(12). 223/2 B.C. 
KvSaOyjvaiov, Antigonis I. 



MvppivovTTa, Aigeis IV. 
BepeviKiSou, Ptolemais VII, 
®opLKos, Akamantis VIII. 
Aa/aa8ai, Oineis IX. 
^v7raX.r]TT6<s, Kekropis X. 
ILaWrjvr), Antiochis XIII. 



The Five Post-Kleisthenean Tribes. 



(13). 222/1 B.C. 

Upof3d\iv6o<s, Pandionis V. 
'A^a^avraa, Hippothontis XI. 
'Axapvai, Oineis IX. 

KvSa^vatov, Antigonis I. 
KafXTTTpai, Krechtheis III. 
BepeviKiSaL, Ptolemais VII. 
Ai^vrj, Kekropis X. 
Qak-qpov, Aiantis XII. 
UaWrjvr) Antiochis XIII. 

In C.I.A. II. 983. 
(15). 183/2 B.C. 



ILuavta, Pan d ion is III. 
^Ka/x^cuvtSat, Eeontis IV. 
^yjttos, Akamantis VI. 
"E7ri€i/aScu, Kekropis VIII. 
'Fafxvovs, Aiantis X. 
'Avd<t>\vo-To<i, Antiochis XI. 

In C.I.A. II. 985. 
(17). 102/1 B.C. 



Mapa6u)v, Aiantis X. 

'EAevo-ts, Hippothontis IX. 
'Epx"*, Aigeis II. 
'A^api/at, Oineis VII. 
IIoTa/xos, Leontis IV. 
Bepevua&u, Ptolemais V. 
Ke<f>a\r), Akamantis VI. 

(19). 100/99 B.C. 

AaKidScu, Oineis VII. 
AevKovorj, Eeontis IV. 
'EAatovs, Hippothontis IX. 

K^itrta, Erechtheis I. 
MvppLvovTTa, Aigeis II. 



(14). 221/0 B.C. 
"AOfxovov, Kekropis X. 



Ko- 



^4>r)TTos, Akamantis VIII. 



n , . 

'Aju, [4>iTpoirrj] (?), Antiochis XIII. 

In C.I.A. II. 863. 

(16). First half of first century B.C. 



"A^iSva, Ptolemais V. 
%ovvlov, Attalis XII. 

$iAat&u, Aigeis II. 
&\vd, Ptolemais V. 
lieptOolhai, Oineis VII. 
Al£(Dvrj, Kekropis VIII. 
<&d\r)pov, Aiantis X. 
'AvdcfrXvcrros, Antiochis XI. 



(18). 101/0 B.C. 

Iletpatevs, Hippothontis IX. 
! lipoPciXLvOos, Attalis XII. 
I KvSa , . 

~Evo)Wfxov, Erechtheis I. 
BepeviKiSai, Ptolemais V. 
KtKvwa, Akamantis VI. 
Aa.KLa.8ai, Oineis VII. 
e AAat, Kekropis VIII. 
Wanting. 

(20). 98/7 B.C. 

! TpLKopwOos, Aiantis X. 
KepafxeLKos, Akamantis VI. 
MeAtVr;, Kekropis VIII. 

KvOrjpos, Pandionis III. 
"Acf>L8va, Ptolemais V. 



Antigonis and Demetrias. 



ILuavta, Pandionis III. 
&\vd, Ptolemais V. 
'Pafxvovs, Aiantis X. 
Sowiov, Attalis XII. 



(21). 96/5 B.C. 

%<j>7)tt6s, Akamantis VI. 
TapyrjTTos, Aigeis II. 
^TTiK-q^ia-ia, Oineis VII. 

KrjSoi, Erechtlieis I. 
Kv8a.Q7jva.L0v, Pandionis III. 
HaiovlSai, Iyeontis IV. 
#Ava, Ptolemais V. 
MapaOwv, Aiantis X. 
'Ar-rjvrj, Antiochis XI. 

In C.I. A. III. 1008. 
(23). Tiberius' reign, 



<£Ava, Ptolemais V. 
^cjurjrTos, Akamantis VI. 
'A^via, Hippothontis IX. 
MapaOoiv, Aiantis X. 
MapaOoiv, Aiantis X. 
HaWrjvr), Antiochis XI. 



Urckm, Oineis VII. 
'EAeuo-t?, Hippothontis IX. 
UakXrjvr), Antiochis XI. 
'iKapia, Aigeis II. 

In C.I. A. III. 1005. 

(22). 5/4 B.C. 

&\vd, Ptolemais V. 
S<£r?TTos, Akamantis VI. 
HepiOolSai, Oineis VII. 

Kr]cf>Lcrid, Krechtheis I. 
MvppivovTTa, Aigeis II. 
KvSaOrjvaiov, Pandionis III. 
AeipaSicorai, Leoiltis IV. 
Qpeappot, Iyeontis IV. 
©/ota, Oineis VII. 

In CIA. III. 1012. 
(24). Late Roman times. 



'A^apvat, Oineis VII or VIII. 

draped, Pandionis III. 
ILaiavLa, Pandionis III. 
&\vd, Ptolemais V. 
®d\r)pov, Aiantis X or XI. 



m$os, Kekropis VIII or IX. 



Although some irregularities are noticeable in these lists, enough 
uniformity prevails to disclose the fact that Antigonis and Demetrias 
were in existence as late as 222/1 B.C., some years after Ptole- 
mais was created . But on other grounds it can be demonstrated that 
they existed long after this date. From the list of secretaries of this 
period it is evident that they continued to exist until 206/5 B.C., at 
least. 1 The tribes Antigonis and Demetrias were probably dis- 
continued in the year 200 B.C. when Attalis was created. They 



] See Ferguson, W. S., The Athenian Secretaries, Cornell Studies in Clas- 
sical Philology, Vol. VII. pp. 50-58. 



6 The Five Post-Kleisthenean Tribes. 

could scarcely have survived the hostile demonstration against 
the Macedonians which broke out in Athens in that year. 1 
This hostility, together with the inconvenience of fourteen tribes r 
would have been sufficient to induce the Athenians to abandon 
Antigonis and Demetrias. We may, therefore, with a consider- 
able degree of confidence, fix the period of their existence as 
307-200 B.C. 

The two tribes are so intimately connected that, in their histori- 
cal relation, it is necessary to treat them together, but in dealing 
with the individual denies of each tribe, it will be more convenient 
to speak of them separately. Accordingly, we take up Antigonis 
first. 

§ 2. Dkmks of Antigonis. 

1. Agryle. This formerly belonged to Erechtheis and was di- 
vided into two parts an upper, KaOv-n-epOev, and a lower, v-rrevepOev. 2 
The location of the deme is fairly well attested by Harpo- 
kration ( 'ApS^TTos* tottos 'AOyvrjaL xnrkp to o~tol8lov to TravaO-qvaiKov 7rpo? 
rw Brjfjuo T(p V7r€vep6ev 'AypvXeW). Agryle KaOv-rrepOev , as its name in- 
dicates, was situated farther up the slope. It is probably this part 
which is referred to in III. 61, ii. 21-23, where we are told of a 
lot situated 'AvkvA^o-i kcu 'AypvXrjarc 7r/oos tu 'Y/x^ttw. During the 
existence of Antigonis, the deme belonged also to Erechtheis, as is 
shown by the accompanying table. As the deme was divided into 
two parts, it is probable that one part only went to Antigonis. 
The inscriptions in which the tribe of Agryle is indicated are : 

A. Erechtheis. 

IV. 2, . 71, 458/7 B.C. II. 338, 273/2 B.C. (?) 

I. 338, 408/7 B.C. II. 1038, ? 

II. 698, 351/0 B.C. II. 991, ca. 200 B.C. 
IV. 2, 1233 b, Latter half of 4th II. 469, 107/6 B.C. 

Cent. B.C. III. 1076, 22/3 A.D. 

IV. 2, 251 b, 306/5 B.C. III. 1113, 143/4 A.D. 

III. 1 1 13 a, 143/4 A.D. 

' Livy, XXXI. 44. »I. 338. 



Antigonis and Demetrias. 7 

B. A?itigonis. 
IV. 2, 385 b, 237/6 B.C. 

C. Attalis. 

II. 470, 1 19/8 B.C. 

D. Aigeis. 

II. 467, 102/1 B.C. 1 

2. Lamptrai. This deme has been perpetuated in the modern 
village Lambrika. Aside from the resemblance of name we 
have Strabo's testimony regarding its general location. 2 Also 

a decree of the deme found a short distance east of Vari 
points to the vicinity of Lambrika for the site of Lamptrai. 5 
As further proof, we may cite the discovery at Lambrika of 
three sepulchral steles 4 and a dedication to Apollo by Lamptraeans . 5 
Like Agryle it was divided into two parts, Lamptrai KaOv-rrepOev, and 
LamptraivTrevep^ev. 6 From II. 960, where we find AafjarTprjs KaOv-rrepOev 
and AafjLTTTpfjs irapaXoi, a clear indication is given of the relative 
location of the two parts : Lower Lamptrai was situated on the 
coast, while Upper Lamptrai was nearer Hymettos, doubtless 
occupying the exact site of the modern Lambrika. 

From 307 B.C. to the time when Antigonis was discontinued, 
Lamptrai belonged to both Brechtheis and Antigonis. It is proba- 
ble that only one part left its former tribe. The tribal connection 
of the deme is shown in the following table : 

A. Erechtheis. 

I. 338, 408/7 B.C. II. 557, ca. 350 B.C. 

II. 857, 4th Cent. B.C. II. 564, Latter half of 4th Cent. 

IV. 2, 645 b, 399/8 B.C. B.C. 

II. 960, 375-350 B.C. IV. 2, 1233 b, Latter half of 4th 

II. 803 c, 356/5 B.C. Cent. B.C. 

IV. 2, 245 c, Mid. 4th Cent. B.C. II. 803 c, 346/5 B.C. 

1 'AypvXijdev by error, I think, for ' Ay Kv\r)dev. 2 Strab. IX. p. 398. 
3 II. 582. *II. 2272, 2286, and IV. 2, 2280 b. 5 IV. 2, 1220 b. 
6 I. 338, II. 991, and IV. 2, 908 b. 



8 



The Five Post-Kleisthenean Tribes. 



II. 1239, 346/5 B.C. 

II. 701, 345/4 B.C. 

II. 172, ca. 336 B.C. 

IV. 2,767 b, 332/1 B.C. 

II. 943, 325/4 B.C. 

II. 324, 275/4 B.C. 

II. 1038, ? 

II. 371, 243/2 B.C. (?) 

II. 859, 235/4 B.C. 

II. 859, 222/1 B.C. 

II. 991, ca. 200 B.C. 

Bulletin 17, p. 146, 133/2 B.C. 

II. 408, 133/2 B.C. 

II. 471, 123/2 B.C. 

II. 470, 1 19/8 B.C. 

II. 461, 109/8 B.C. 

IV. 2, 477 d, 108/7 B.C. 

II. 465, 105/4 B.C. 

II. 467, 102/1 B.C. 

III. 101 9, Latter half of istCent. Ill 



B. 





B.C. 


II. 


481, 45/4 B.C. 


II. 


482, 38/7 B.C. 


II. 


324, 275/4 B.C. 


II. 


335. 269-262 B.C 



III. 


1276, 


23/2 B.C. 


III. 


1076, 


22/3 A.D. 


III. 


1091, 


85/6 A.D. 


III. 


1020, 


93/4 A.D. (?) 


III. 


1093, 


103/4 A.D. 


III. 


1092, 


105/6 A.D. 


III. 


1113, 


143/4 A.D. 


III. 


1114, 


146/7 A.D. 


III. 


1121, 


155/6 A.D. 


III. 


1123, 


ca. 156 A.D. 


III. 


1128, 


164/5 A.D. 


III. 


1132, 


166/7 A.D. 


III. 


H33, 


1 70/ 1 A.D. 


III. 


H37> 


ca. 172-177 A.D 


III. 


1138, 


174/5 A.D. 


III. 


H47> 


190/1 A.D. 


III. 


1 160, 


192/3 A.D. 


III. 


1163, 


201/2 A.D. 


III. 


1171. 


205/6 A.D. 


. III. 


ii97, 


240/1 A.D. 


III. 


1202, 


262/3 A.D. 


III. 


3896, 


(?) 


ntigonis. 




II. 859, 2 


34/3 B.C. 



3. Gargettos. 1 The name of this deme also has been preserved 
in Garito, the name of a small village to the northeast of Athens. 
If much importance is to be attached to the provenience of in- 
scriptions of a local character the exact site of Gargettos is to be 
sought, not at Garito, but rather farther south, at or near Ieraka. 2 



1 For an exhaustive discussion of this deme see Young, C. H., Gargettus 
an Attic Deme, Classical Studies in Honour of Henry Drisler. 
2 Cf. IV. 2, 1967 d, 1972, 1976 b ; also II. 1968 found at Charvati. 



Antigonis and Demetrias. 9 

The record of a dowry security 1 to Xenariste, daughter of Pytho- 

doros of Gargettos, found at Spata, points to this general quarter. 

Gargettos was not a double deme like Agryle, Lamptrai, etc., so it 

went over to Antigonis entire. The tribal relation is shown 

by the following table : 

A. Aegeis. 

II. 789 a, 373/2 B.C. III. 1091, 85/6 A.D. 

II. 677, 367/6 B.C. III. 1093, 103/4 A.D. 

II. 870, Mid. of 4th Cent. B.C. III. 1092, 105/6 A.D. 

II. 1010, Mid. of 4th Cent. B.C. III. 1023, 139/40 A.D. 

II. 872, 341/0 B.C. III. 1 1 13 a, 143/4 A.D. 

II. 172, ca. 336 B.C. III. 1 1 14, 146/7 A.D. 

II. 943, 325/4 B.C. III. 1 120, 150/1 A.D. 

IV. 2, 184 b, Before 322/1 B.C. III. 1121, 155/6 A.D. 

IV. 2, 1025 b, Before 307/6 B.C. III. 1128, 164/5 A.D. 

II. 991, ca. 200 B.C. III. 1132, 166/7 A.D. 

II. 470, 119/8 B.C. III. 1138, 174/5 A.D. 

IV. 2, 477 d, 108/7 B.C. III. 1 160, 192/3 A.D. 

II. 469, 107/6 B.C. III. 1 163, 201/2 A.D. 

II. 465, 105/4 B.C. III. 1171, 205/6 A.D. 

II. 481, 45/4 B.C. III. 1202, 262/3 A.D. 

II. 1258, 1st Cent. B.C. (?) III. 3896, ? 

III. 1076, 22/3 A.D. 

B. Antigonis. 

IV. 2, 251 b, 306/5 B.C. II. 324, 275/4 B.C. 
II. 255, 304/3 B.C. II. 859, 232/1 B.C. 

4. Ikaria. The location of this deme at Dionyso has been 
definitely determined by the excavations conducted by the Amer- 
ican School at that place in 1888. 2 In none of our inscriptions is 
Ikaria found under Antigonis, but there are some facts which prove 
quite conclusively that it belonged to that tribe. 3 In II. 329, ca. 
273/2B. C. a list of prytanes of Aigeis is given. Of the twenty demes 
known to have belonged to Aigeis, four are unrepresented here — 

'II. 1137. 

2 Cf. Papers of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 
Vol. V. 

3 Cf. Kirchner, Rhein. Mns. 47, p. 550 ff. 



io The Five Post-Kleisthenean Tribes. 

Gargettos, Ikaria, Bate, and Diomeia. On the other hand, the 
list contains the names of only forty- five prytanes instead of the 
regular number, fifty. Inasmuch as Gargettos belonged to An- 
tigonis at this time, the five prytanes wanting must be assigned to 
Ikaria, Bate, and Diomeia, or to some of them. In II. 872, 341/0 
B.C., Bate and Diomeia had one representative each, while Ikaria 
had five. It would have been impossible to include all three in 
the list of II. 329, even if no allowance were to be made for an in- 
creased representation, necessitated by the withdrawal of Gargettos 
from the tribe of Aigeis. The absence of a deme so large as 
Ikaria in the list of prytanes could hardly be explained as due to 
oversight. It is, therefore, probable, as Kirchner assumes, that 
Ikaria did not belong to Aigeis at this date, but to Antigonis. 
Nor is this the only evidence. In II. 338 there is given a list of 
ephebes for the year 273/2 B.C. (?), and under Antigonis there are 
three names — Xaipi-y ivrjs Kt^ctikA— — , Tl/jlok [p] drr]<s Ti/xoKpa [rovs] 
— , and HapdfjivOos A^o^a^o [ v ?] — . As we learn from a sepulchral 
inscription 1 one Chairigenes, of Ikaria, son of Agasias, was klerou- 
chos of the island of Imbros. The inscription may be of either the 
fourth or third century B.C. Inasmuch as the name Chairigenes 
is not frequent in Attic inscriptions, there is a probability that the 
two men are of the same family. Secondly, in the inscription 
mentioned above 2 there is a prytanis of Ikaria named Timokritos, 
son of Timokrates: likewise in II. 803 a, 1. 43, ca. 342/1 B.C., 
one Timokrates of Ikaria is mentioned as having paid 87 dr. 
2 ob. towards the trireme Aglaia. These three facts make it 
extremely probable that Ikaria belonged to Antigonis. 

The tribal relation of the deme, as shown by the inscriptions, 
is as follows : 

A. Aigeis. 

II. 652, 398/7 B.C. IV. 2, 767 b, 332/1 B.C. 

H- 799 c> 369/8 B.C. II. 1020, ca 330 B.C. 

II. 1010, Middle of 4th Cent. II. 943, 325/4 B.C. 

B.C. IV. 2, 1025 b, Before 307/6 B.C. 

II. 872, 341/0 B.C. 

1 Conze, Reise auf den Inseln des Thrakischen Meeres, p. 85. 
»II. 872, 341/0 B.C. 



Antigonis and Demetrias. n 

B. Ptolemais. 

II. 1041, End of 2nd Cent. B.C. III. 1142, ca. 180 A.D. 

In the archon list for 98/7 B.C., (see above p. 5 ) the sixth 
thesmothetes is from Ikaria. Kirchner takes this as an indication 
that Ikaria belonged to Attalis. As the deme belonged to Ptolemais 
at this time, it is more likely that we have here merely another 
deviation from the usual order observed in those lists. 

5. Kydathenaion. This aristocratic deme is generally located 
in the region immediately south of the Acropolis. * It belonged 
earlier to Pandionis and gave its name to the city trittys of that 
tribe. 2 Its tribal relation is as follows : 

A. Pandionis. 

I. 299, 444-435 B.C. II. 465, 105/4 B -C 

II. 553, ca. 400 B.C. II. 985, 96/5 B.C. 
II. 558, 4th Cent. B.C. III. 1005, 5/4 B.C. 
II. 865, 4th Cent. B.C. III. 1076, 22/3 A.D. 
IV. 2, 245 c, 4th Cent. B.C. III.' 1091, 85/6 A.D. 
II. 559, First half of 4th Cent. III. 1092, 105/6 A.D. 

B.C. III. 11 13, 143/4 A.D. 

II. 1255, " " III. 1 1 14, 146/7 A.D. 

II. 998, " " III. 1125, ca. 160 A.D. 

IV. 2, 871b, Latter half of 4th III. 1128, 164/5 A.D. 

Cent. B.C. III. 1029, 167/8 A.D. 

II. 1014, 343/2 or 336/5 B.C. III. 1032, 170/1 A.D. 

II. 1020, ca. 330 B.C. III. 1133, 170/1 A.D. 

IV. 2, 563 c, 326/5 B.C. III. 1142, ca. 180 A.D. 
IV. 2, 184 b, Shortly before III. 1160, 192/3 A.D. 

322/1 B.C. III. 1163, 201/2 A.D. 

II. 230 b, ca. 320 B.C. III. 10, 209/10 A.D. 

II. 1176, Before 307/6 B.C. III. 1056, 214/5 A.D. 

II. 471, 123/2 B.C. III. 1186, ca. 225 A.D. 

II. 470, 1 1 9/8 B.C. III. 1231, ? 

II. 469, 107/6 B.C. 

1 Kastromenos locates it northeast of the Acropolis. 

2 Cf. II. 871. 



12 The Five Post-Kleisthenean Tribes. 

B. Antigonis. 

II. 316, 283/2 B.C. II. 859, 222/1 B.C. 

II. 859, 236/5 B.C. II. 431, 220/19 B.C. 

6. Paiania. This deuie, the home of Demosthenes and 
Demades, was doubtless situated on the site of the modern village, 
Liopesi, for, of Paianian inscriptions there have been found here 
five sepulchral steles, 1 and at Spata, a short distance east, one stele 
and one mortgage record 2 ; near Karela, just south of L,iopesi, one 
sepulchral stele, 3 and at Peristeri one. 4 Iyike Agryle and Iyamp- 
trai noticed above, Paiania was divided into an upper and a lower 
part. In this case it is quite evident that lower Paiania was much 
the larger of the two. 5 Paiania was the largest deme of Pan- 
dionis and gave its name to the inland trittys. As we saw 
above, Kydathenaion, the second largest deme of Pandionis, went 
over to Antigonis entire. It is, therefore, to be expected that 
Paiania would not, and that, if either part was transferred, it would 
be upper Paiania, the smaller part ; and from what we may legiti- 
mately conclude from the references to the deme during the ex- 
istence of Antigonis, that is exactly what happened ; for Paiania 
is found ten times under Pandionis and only twice under Antigo- 
nis from 307/6 to 200 B.C. The following table will show its tri- 
bal relation : 

A . Pandionis. 

I. 260, 421/0 B.C. IV. 2, 1209 b, First half of 4th 

II. 553, ca. 400 B.C. Cent. B.C. 

II. 558, 4th Cent. B.C. II. 652, 398/7 B.C. 

II. 1251, 4th Cent. B.C. II. 677, 367/6 B.C. 

II. 857, 4th Cent. B.C. IV. 2, 871 b, ca. Mid. of 4th 

II. 865, 4th Cent. B.C. Cent. B.C. 

II. 1256, 4th Cent. B.C. II. 871, 348/7 B.C. 



1 II. 2401, 2416, 2423, IV. 2, 2409 b, and III. 3603. 
2 II. 2403 and IV. 2, 1 150 b. 3 II. 2420. 
*IV. 2, 2406 b. 5 Cf. II. 865 and 871. 



Antigonis and Demetrias. 13 

II. 172, 340-336 B.C. II. 467, 102/1 B.C. 

II. 804A, 333/2 B.C. II. 482, 38/7 B.C. 

II. 1020, ca. 330 B.C. III. 1076, 22/3 A.D. 

II. 941, 330 29 B.C. III. 1091, 85/6 A.D. 

II. 176, 330/29 B.C. III. 1093, 103/4 A.D. 

II. 943, 325/4 B.C. III. 1092, 105/6 A.D. 

IV. 2, 251 b, 306/5 B.C. III. 1024, ca. 140 A.D. 
IV. 2, 565 b, ca. 302/1 B.C. III. 1 1 13, 143/4 A.D. 

II. 873 3rd Cent. B.C. III. 1114, 146/7 A.D. 

II. 330, 291 o B.C. III. 1124, 148/9 A.D. 

II. 311, 289/8 B.C. III. 1120, 150/1 A.D. 

II. 316, 283/2 B.C. III. 1121, 155/6 A.D. 

II. 338, 273/2 B.C. III. 1128, 164/5 A.D. 

H- 335. 269-262 B.C. III. 1029, 167/8 A.D. 

II. 859, 237/6 B.C. III. 1133, 170/1 A.D. 

II. 859, 235/4 B.C. III. 1032, 170/1 A.D. 
Bulletin 17, p. 146, 131/0 B.C. III. 1138, 174/5 A.D. 

II. 471, 123/2 B.C. III. 1142, ca. 180 A.D. 
Bulletin 17, p. 147, 119/8 B.C. III. 1163, 201/2 A.D. 

II. 470, 119/8 B.C. III. 1171, 205/6 A.D. 

II. 470, 1 19/8 B.C. III. 10, 209/10 A.D. 

II. 469, 107/6 B.C. III. 1056, 214/5 A.D. 

II. 465, 105/4 B.C. HI. 1231, ? 

B. Antigo?iis. 

IV. 2, 251 b, 306/5 B.C. II. 403, 207/6 B.C. 

7. Aithalidai. The exact location of this deme is not yet de- 
termined. Both Milchhofer 1 and Loper 2 agree in assigning it to 
the inland trittys of Leontis, the chief deme of which is Acharnai. 
Milchhofer identifies it with Chasia, to the northwest of 
Acharnai, while Loper locates it southeast, on the Kephissos 
river. The tribal relation is indicated in the following table : 



1 Untersuchungen iiber die Demenordnung des Kleisthenes, Berlin (1892). 
2 Die Trittyen und Demen Attikas, Mitth. d. d. Arch. Inst., Vol. XVII. 
p. 319 ff. 



14 The Five Post-Kleisthenean Tribes. 

A. Leontis. 

II. 864, First half 4th Cent. B.C. II. 470, 118/7 B.C. 

II. 652, 397/6 B.C. II. 1049, Mid. of 1st Cent. B.C. 

II. 960, Before the mid. of 4th III. n 14, 146/7 A.D. 

Cent. B.C. III. 1124, 148/9 A.D. 

II. 1020, ca. 330 B.C. III. 1 133, 170/1 A.D. 

II. 446, 155/4 B.C. III. 1066, ? 
II. 470, 1 19/8 B.C. 

B. Antigonis. 

II. 316, 283/2 B.C. II. 336, 252/1 B.C. 

IV. 2, 331 b, 281/0 B.C. II. 859, 229/8 B.C. 

Besides these inscriptions in which the tribe of Aithalidai is in- 
dicated, there is one other case that requires some comment. I 
refer to II. 1291, 282/1 B.C. Kirchner, in the index to C. I. A, 
II., classes the reference to this deme under Leontis, but I believe 
it can be shown that its tribe here is not necessarily Leontis. 

During at least the first half of the third century, the &7/A0? 
assumed the office of chorege and equipped the chorus. The 
agonothetes was an annual officer chosen, not by his tribe, as the 
chorege formerly was, but by the people as a whole, and had 
supervision of the musical contests not only at the Dionysia but 
also at other festivals. Thus the correspondence in tribe of the 
agonothetes and the victorious chorus would be merely accidental. 1 
In further substantiation of this we can cite two inscriptions, II. 
1290, 307/6 B.C., in which the agonothetes was Xenokles, son of 
Xenias, of Sphettos which is a deme'of Akamantis, while the tribe 
of the victorious chorus was either Antigonis or Demetrias as 
shown by the fact that the name of the tribe has been intentionally 
chiseled out ; and II. 1293, 271/0 B.C., in which the agonothetes 
is from Hippothontis, while the victorious chorus is from 
Pandionis. 

*For a fuller discussion of the agonothetes, see Kohler Mitth. d. d. Arch. 
Inst. III. p. 229 ff. 



Antigo?iis and Demetrias. 15 

8. Deiradiotai. This was located near Potamos in the southeast- 
ern part of Attica, as we learn from the name IIoTa/uoi AeipaSiwTai 1 , as 
well as from the provenience of inscriptions of a local character 2 . 
The evidence on which Deiradiotai is assigned to Antigonis, 
though not conclusive, has much weight. In the list of thesmo- 
thetai for 228/7 B.C. the first one is from Deiradiotai. Inasmuch 
as Ptolemais was in existence at this time, as will be shown later, 
we could assign Deiradiotai to L,eontis, its old tribe, and complete 
the list with the following tribes : Ptolemais, Akamantis, Oineis, 
Kekropis, Hippothontis. But it must be noted that in none of the 
other lists of thesmothetai do we observe such a consecutive suc- 
cession of tribes. As will be shown by the accompanying table, 
there is no evidence against the assumption that Dieradiotai be- 
longed to Antigonis from 307 to 200 B.C. 

A. Leontis. 

II. 864, First half 4th Cent. B.C. II. 469, 107/6 B.C. 

II. 1306, 339/8 B.C. II. 467, 102/1 B.C. 

II. 804 A, 333/2 B.C. Ii: 1049, Mid. of 1st Cent. B.C. 

II. 1020, ca. 330 B.C. III. 1091, 85/6 A.D. 

II. 943, 325/4 B.C. 

B. A?itigonis. (?) 
II. 859, 228/7 B.C. 

9. Kitea. The location of this deme is entirely unknown. Be- 
fore 307/6 B.C., both Antiochis and Akamantis could lay claim to 
an Eitea. Likewise from 200 B.C., until the creation of Hadrianis, 
Antiochis and Akamantis counted it among their demes. After 
the creation of Hadrianis, demes of this name are found under 
Antiochis and Hadrianis. From these facts it is evident that there 
were two demes of this name, one belonging to Antiochis at all 
periods, the other not so constant in its tribal attachment. This 

1 Mitth. d. d. Arch. Inst. X. p. 105 ff. Cf. also II. 864. 
2 II. 1 981, a sepulchral stele found at Keratea, and IV. 2, 1141 c, a mortgage 
stone recording a mortgage to Kallias of Deiradiotai, from the same place. 



1 6 The Five Post-Kleisthenean Tribes. 

view is made extremely probable by the meaning of the name. 
Eitea, or as often spelled, Itea, means "willow". It is easily 
conceivable that there were numerous places in Attica to which 
this designation would be applicable. Furthermore, there were 
several doublets whose names were taken from some natural topo- 
graphical characteristics, asHalai, Oion, Kolonos, Potamos, Oinoe, 
and possibly Elaious. Similarly we find Oa and Oe (often writ- 
ten Oie) . Why then could not the same be true of Eitea ? I be- 
lieve it was. Granting there were two demes called Eitea it seems 
more likely that the Eitea which was reallotted to Antigonis was 
the one formerly belonging to Akamantis. The table showing 
the tribal relation of Eitea is as follows : 

A. Akamantis. 

IT. 121, 338/7 B.C. 1 II. 956, Last quarter of 2nd 

IV. 2, 767 b, 336-332 B.C. Cent. B.C. 

II. 991, ca. 200 B.C. II. 470, 1 19/8 B.C. 

II. 957, Last quarter of 2nd II. 481, 45/4 B.C. 
Cent. B.C. 

B. Antiochis. 

II. 869, Mid. of 4th Cent. B.C. II. 467, 102/1 B.C. 
II. 944, ca. 325/4 B.C. III. 1093, 103/4 A.D. 

II. 465, 105/4 B.C. HI- n6o, 192/3 A.D. 

C. Antigonis. 
II. 316, 283/2 B.C. 

D. Hadrianis. 

III. 1 1 13 a, 143/4 A.D. HI- 1 163, 201/2 A.D. 

III. 1 128, 164/5 A.D. III. 1281 a, After 212/3 A.D. 

III. 1039, 165-185 A.D. III. 1180, After 212/3 A. D. 

Kirchner in his discussion of the two tribes, Antigonis and 
Demetrias, 2 has endeavored to show that Amphitrope belonged to 

a See W. S. Ferguson's work, p. 33, cited at page 5. 
2 Rhein. Mus. 47, p. 550 ff. 



Antigonis and Demetrias. ij 

Antigonis during this period. He used as an argument II. 737 B, 
306 5 B.C., 1 in which the iinc-TaTr]*; TrpvTaveoiv of some prytany prior 
to the tenth is from Amphitrope, whereas Antiochis held the 
twelfth prytany for this year. He therefore assumes that Am- 
phitrope passed over to Antigonis or Demetrias ; and, as Deme- 
trias held the seventh prytany of the year 306/5 B.C., 2 he thinks 
it went rather to Antigonis and that the prytany whose record 
is posted was either the eighth or the ninth. In view of the fact 
that Amphitrope belonged to Anticchis during the existence of 
Antigonis, 3 I should explain the first record posted in II. 737 with 
the name of the 'E7rto-TaT^s TrpvTaveuv from Amphitrope attached, as 
that of Antiochis for the preceding year 307/6 B.C., unless we 
assume with Kohler that the e7rto-Tarrys 7rpvTaveo)v of this inscription 
is different from the presiding officer of the prytany. 

The complexion, therefore, of the tribe Antigonis, so far as at 
present determinable, is as follows : 





Original 
Deme. Tribe. 




Original 
Deme. Tribe. 


I. 

2. 


Agryle 1 Erechtheis< 
Lamptrai j 


'5- 
6. 


Kydathenaion j p andionis 
Paiania j 


3- 
4- 


?S t0S }^ei, 


7- 

8. 


Aithalidai }j 
Deiradiotai j 



9. Kitea Akamantis. 

The conclusions to be drawn from the foregoing discussion are : 
First, that Antigonis was composed of demes transferred 
from the first five of the original ten tribes, two from each 
except Akamantis. Secondly, that, Kirchner to the con- 
trary, no undivided deme of Antigonis belonged to its 
former tribe from 307 to 200 B.C. With Agryle, Lamptrai, and 
Paiania, the case is quite different. Thirdly, that of these nine 
demes all, except Agryle and Ikaria, returned to their earlier 
tribes when Antigonis was discontinued in 200 B.C. 

*Cf. also Kohler, Mitth. d. d. Arch. Inst., V. p. 268 ff. f and Dittenberger, 
Syll. 130. 

2 II. 246. 

3 Cf. archon lists for 235/4, and 221/0 B.C. where the sixth thesmothetes is 
from a deme the first two letters of which are AM — probably for Amphitrope. 



1 8 The Five Post-Kleisthenean Tribes. 

§ 3. Demes of Demetrias. 

1. Hippotornadai. The location is unknown. Milchhofer 
thinks that it was situated near Kothokidai, from the fact that 
both were transferred to Demetrias from the same tribe/ Oineis. 
The latter deme was located somewhere in the Thriasian plain. 
Its tribal connection is shown by the following table : 

A . Oineis. 

II. 868, 360/59 B.C. III. 1042, ca. 185 A.D. 

III. 1 124, 148/9 A.D. III. 1037, ca - 200 A.D. 

B. Demetrias. 
II. 324, 275/4 B.C. II. 330, 256/5 B.C. 

2. Kothokidai. The exact location is not determined. I 
probably belonged to the coast trittys of Oineis. Its tribal rela- 
tion is indicated by the following table : 

A . Oineis. 

II. 667, 384/3 B.C. IV. 2, 477, 103/2 B.C. 

II. 803 d, 375/4 B.C. II. 467, 102/1 B.C. 

II. 868, 360/59 B.C. III. 1 1 14, 146/7 A.D. 

II. 469, 107/6 B.C. III. 1278, End of 2nd Cent. A.D. 

B. Demetrias. 
II. 324, 275/4 B.C. II. 859, 235/4 B.C. 

3. Melite. This deme was situated inside the city limits be- 
tween the Nymphs' Hill and the Pnyx. It was the home of a 
large metic population, as attested by numerous inscriptions. 
According to the scholiast on Arist. Frogs, 501, a temple of 
Herakles was situated in this deme. From two passages in 
Greek literature we know that it was near the market place and 
above it. 1 It was also the home of Themistokles who built here a 



'Demos. LIV. 7, p. 1258, and Plat. Parmen. p. 126 C. 



Antigonis and Demetrias. 19 

temple to Artemis under the special title of Artemis Aristoboule 
to commemorate the good counsel which he claimed was his 
service to the Athenians. 1 Phokion, too, had a residence here. 2 
From a statement in Strabo 3 one would judge that it and Kollytos 
were contiguous demes. Its tribal relation was as follows : 

A. Kekropis. 

II. 971 d, First half of 4th Cent. III. 1092, 105/6 A.D. 

B.C. III. 1 1 13, 143/4 A.D. 

II. 555, 376/5 B.C. III. 1113 a, 143/4 A.D. 

II. 799 c, 369/8 B.C. III. 1 1 14, 146/7 A.D. 

II. 803 d, 366/5 B.C. III. 1 124, 148/9 A.D. 

II. 1 177, ca. Mid. of 4th Cent. III. 1120, 150/1 A.D. 

B.C. III. 1121, 155/6 A.D. 

II. 943, 325/4 B.C. III. 1 128, 164/5 A.D. 

II. 944, ca. 325/4 B.C. III. 1 133, 170/1 A.D. 

II. 236, 313/2 B.C. III. 1138, 174/5 A.D. 

II. 2338, ? III. 1035, ca. 180 A.D. 

Bulletin 17, p. 147, 126/5 B.C. III. 1281, ? 

II. 471, 123/2 B.C. III. 1046, 182/3 A.D. 

II. 470, 119/8 B.C. III. 1160, 192/3 A.D. 

Bulletin 17, p. 147, 114/3 B.C. III. 1163, 201/2 A.D. 

II. 469, 107/6 B.C. III. 1171, 205/6 A.D. 

II. 465, 105/4 B.C. III. 1 188, After 217/8 A.D. 

II. 481, 45/4 B.C. III. 1177, 219/20 A.D. 

II. 482. 38/7 B.C. III. 1202, 262/3 A.D. 

III. 1276, 23/2 B.C. III. 1230, ? 

B. Demetrias. 

II. 316, 283/2 B.C. IV. 2, 331 c, 268/7 B.C. 

II. 335, 269/262 B.C. 

1 Plut. Them., ch. XXII. 2 Plut. Phok., ch. XVIII. 
3 Strab. I. pp. 65, 66. 



20 The Five Post-Kleisthenian Tribes. 

4. Xypete. According to Milchhofer and Loper this deme was 
located within the city limits on the road from Athens to Peirai- 
eus. Its tribal relation is as follows : 

A. Kekropis. 

IV. 2, 128 c, 336/5 B.C. II. 1246, 320/19 B.C. 

IV. 2, 563 b, 334/3 B.C. II. 470, 119/8 B.C. 

II. 943, 325/4 B.C. II. 469, 107/6 B.C. 

II. 944, ca. 325/4 B.C. II. 467, 102/1 B.C. 
IV. 2, 184 b, Before 322/1 B.C. 

B. Demetrias. 

IV. 2, 251 b, 306/5 B.C. II. 324, 275/4 B.C. 

5. Koile. This, too, was one of the urban denies, situated 
probably in the hollow between the Pnyx and Museion hills. It 
was in this deme near the Melitean gate that Kimon l , Herodotus, 
and Thucydides 2 were buried. Like Melite, it embraced a large 
metic population. Its tribal connection is indicated by the follow- 
ing table : 

A. Hippothontis . 

II. 971 e, First half of 4th Cent. II. 467, 102/1 B.C. 

B.C. III. 1092, 105/6 A.D. 

II. 1013, ? III. 1133, 170/1 A.D. 

IV. 2, 767 b, 336-332 B.C. III. 1 142, ca. 180 A.D. 

IV. 2, 245 b, Before 307/6 B.C. III. 1160, 192/3 A.D. 

II. 470, 1 19/8 B.C. III. 1052, ca. Beg. of 3rd Cent. 
II. 469, 107/6 B.C. A.D. 

II. 465, 105/4 B.C. 

B. Demetrias. 

II. 316, 283/2 B.C. II. 324, 275/4 B.C. 

6. Atene. The exact site of this deme has not yet been deter- 
mined with certainty. However, there can be little doubt in re- 



1 Herod. VI. 103. 2 Markellin. B/os Qovkv8L8ov \ 17. 



Antigonis and Demetrias. 2i 

gard to its general location. As Milchhofer points out, in II. 
869 and 944, it is mentioned in close connection with the other 
denies of the coast trittys of Antiochis. This would indicate that 
it was to be sought in the southwestern part of Attica, near 
Anaphlystos. I believe Lbper is correct in assuming that 'Ar^ms 
and not 'A^viet? is to be read in Strabo IX. 398, where the MSS. 
read 'A^vels which necessitates some change. If this is corrected 
to 'A^viels. we have one deme of Hippothontis widely separated 
from the rest of that tribe, and are compelled to assume a fourfold 
division of Hippothontis, whereas by correcting to' Kr-qveU we have 
a deme of Antiochis, the coast trittys of which was situated in 
this region. l Its tribal connection is shown bj^ the following 

table : 

A. Antiochis. 

II. 869, Mid. of 4th Cent. B.C. II. 944, ca. 325/4 B.C. 
II. 701, 345/4B.C. 

B. Demetrias. 

IV. 2, 269b, 302/1 B.C. 2 II. 859, 224/3 B -C. 

C. Attalis. 

II. 444, 161/0 B.C. II. 465, 105/4 B.C. 

II. 470, 119/8 B.C. 

7. Thorai. The location of Thorai is fairly well established. 
Strabo 3 enumerates the coast demes of Attica, beginning with the 
Peiraieus. The mention of Thorai in connection with Iyamptrai 
shows its general situation. The order of enumeration is the re- 
verse of what the trittys arrangement requires. L,6per 4 explains 

x Cf. Loper, Die Trittyen und Demen Attikas, Mitth. d. d. Arch. Inst. 
XVII. p. 335 and Note. 

2 Wrongly transliterated as 'A£r)v[Lefc~\. Another error in the same inscrip- 
tion is [$777a]i(etfs) for the eleventh proedros. All that is left on the stone 
is the i. Restore [OtW]r(os), if the person's name is Theodorus, for Oinoe 
was a deme of Aiantis, and the eleventh proedros should be from that tribe. 

3 Strabo IX. p. 398. 

4 Mitth. d. d. Arch. Inst. XVII. p. 327 ff. 



22 The Five Post-Kleisthenean Tribes. 

this irregularity as due to the fact that Lamptrai is situated farther 
inland and that for this reason Strabo, after giving those demes 
on the immediate coast, retraces his steps to record the demes 
farther inland. Such a deviation is not uncommon with Strabo, 
The tribal relation of Thorai is shown in the following table of in- 
scriptions : 

A. Antiochis. 

II. 803 d, 363/2 B.C. II. 469, 107/6 B.C. 

II. 869, Mid. of 4th Cent. B.C. II. 481, 45/4 B.C. 
II. 803 c, 342/1 B.C. III. 1120, 150/1 A.D. 

II. 944, ca. 325/4 B.C. III. 1 163, 201/2 A.D. 

II. 470, 1 19/8 B.C. 

B. Demetrias. 

IV. 2, 385 b, 237/6 B.C. II. 859, 233/2 B.C. 

II. 859, 234/3 B.C. 

The question as to whether Agnous and Anakaia belonged to 
Demetrias calls for some remarks at this point. Kirchner, in the 
article cited above, p. 9, assigns the deme Agnous to Demetrias. 
As stated elsewhere in this discussion, his authority is Stephanos 

of Byzantion who says : 'AyvoOs • StJ/jlos iv rrj 'Atti/o? rrjs A^/z^T/oiaSos 
<j>v\rjs • Ttves Se rrjs 'AKa/rnvrtSos 77 ws <3>jowi;(os, rfjs ArraXtSo?. This 
is the only evidence that can be adduced at present to prove that 
Agnous did belong to Demetrias. And while Stephanos' assertion 
is so straightforward, there are some peculiarities about it which 
lead one to suspect its accuracy. In the first place Agnous is the 
only deme that Stephanos anywhere assigns either to Antigonis 
or to Demetrias. Secondly, it betrays an apparent uncertainty in 
regard to the tribe of Agnous during other periods than that in 
which Demetrias was in existence. And yet there is abundant 
inscriptional evidence that it belonged to Akamantis before 307 
B.C., and to Attalis after 200 B.C. In his argument for the view 
taken, Kirchner says : " Da die Angaben des Stephanos uber die 
attischen Demen sich als zuverlassig erwiesen haben, ist kein 
Grund zum Zweifel vorhanden, dass Hagnous zwischen 307/6-200 



Antigonis and Demetrias. 23 

der Demetrias angehort hat. " Anyone who has made a careful 
study of the denies of Attica must allow that Stephanos is gener- 
ally reliable in his assertions on that subject. But he is not infal- 
lible. I may cite a few instances. He tells us that Melite be- 
longed to Oineis, Marathon to L,eontis, Aphidna to Iyeontis, and 
Boutadai to Aigeis. These statements are not borne out by the 
inscriptional evidence which, in the case of the denies mentioned, is 
very complete. Because of these reasons and the fact that the in- 
scriptions, the only thoroughly reliable source of information on 
the subject, fail us for the period 307-200 B.C., the safest course 
is to wait for inscriptional evidence. I shall not, therefore, follow 
Kirchner in assigning Agnous to Demetrias. 

Kirchner classes Anakaia also among the denies of Demetrias 
on the slight evidence of II. 859, (see above p. 3), where the 
second thesmothetes in the list for 229/8 B.C. is from Anakaia 
and immediately follows the one from Antigonis. This order 
seems to indicate that Anakaia belonged to Demetrias, and in the 
absence of evidence to the contrary such an assumption would 
pass unchallenged, but in this case there is evidence against this 
view. In the same archon list the polemarch is from Demetrias. 
This would necessitate the supposition that one tribe could be 
doubly represented on the board of archons. And while such an 
assumption is substantiated by a few instances, mostly in late 
times, the Athenians seem to have studiously avoided such a 
double representation. Again, in the same inscription among the 
thesmothetai for 236/5 B.C., the fifth is from Anakaia, where the 
order requires Hippothontis, and that Anakaia did belong to 
Hippothontis at this time, is shown by the list of proedroi in II. 
371, the date of which is about the middle of the third century, 
at the time of twelve tribes. Here the tenth proedros is from 
Anakaia and consequently from Hippothontis. These facts make 
it improbable that Anakaia belonged to Demetrias. Further- 
more, the order in the archon lists does not conform so strictly to 
the tribal order as to necessitate such an assumption as Kirchner' s. 
For, if so, it would be necessary to assign Eleusis to some other 
tribe than Hippothontis, since it heads the list of Thesmothetai 



24 The Five Post-Kleisthenean Tribes. 

for 1 02/ 1 B.C. There are other irregularities in these lists which 
are apparent to one on examination. Anakaia is also assigned to 
Hippothontis in IV. 2, 251 b, frg. 1. according to the restoration, 
which here must be incorrect. The two partially destroyed 
deme (?) names are restored as 'AvaKoueZs, and 'EAmovo-101 or 
'Axe/oSoixriot. This restoration necessitates an unparalleled dis- 
symmetry, in that the initial letter of 'AvaKaids would stand three 
letter-spaces farther to the right than the corresponding letter of 
"EiXollovo-lol, and four farther than that of 'A^epSouo-tot. It is more 
likely that, if we restore 'EA.axovo-101 or 'A^epSovo-tot, the vAI of 1. 3 
is part of some person's name. 

It may be urged that the Anakaia assigned by Kirchuer to De- 
metrias was not the deme of that name belonging to Hippothontis, 
but the one which in II. 996 is given under Akamantis according 
to Kohler's restoration. 1 But I think it can be shown that his 
restoration of the inscription in general is incorrect. It is cer- 
tainly so if the author has given us a faithful transcription. We 
have here an inscription of the stoichedon arrangement. In 1. 10, 
the letter which Kohler transfers to minuscules as T has the right 
portion of the horizontal too long for a T. Furthermore, the per- 
pendicular is too far to the left for T. Not having the stone be- 
fore me I cannot determine accurately the reading, but I should 
judge that E was to be read here instead of T. We can then restore 
KEIPIA] AAIin 1. 6 in place of Kohler's E I P E 2 I] AAI; 
K O n P] E I O I in 1. 10 instead of l$HT]TIOI; and 
A N A] K A I H 2 in 1. 14 the same as he suggests. We then have 
three demes all from the same tribe, — Hippothontis — and possibly 
four. Nor is this the strongest evidence. In II. 672, 376/5 B.C. 

we find that obios, .son of Smikythos of Keiriadai was 

ra/u'as twv aXXwv 6eu>v ; as our inscription falls in the first half of 
the fourth century B.C., I should identify Smikythos in II. 672 
with the one mentioned 1. 7 of II. 996. Again, in 1.8 there is 
given T/DarogNt/coo-rpaT. In II. 2 1 26 we read NiKoo-rparos 

1 He says Anakaia or Erikeia ; but the demotikon of Erikeia would be 
'EpiKeiijs here. Hence only Anakaia is possible. 



Antigonis and Demetrias. 25 

NtKoo-rparo Kei/naS?7s which, as shown by the genitive ending-o for 
later-ov, falls in the same period as our inscription, for there we 
find the same writing. Likewise in II. 944, ca. 325/4 B.C. Niko- 
teles, son of Xenotimos, of Kopros was diaitetes. The Xenotimos 
is probably to be identified with the one in 1. 13 of II. 996. Lastly 

in 1. 3 we have left 9 *Avtlk\€ov<s. In II. 1006 we read 

Antikles, son of Antiphanes, among the Dekeleians. The date of 
the inscription is about the middle of the fourth century. We 
may identify the two men with the name Antikles and restore in II. 
996 [^AvTL<f>dvr]] ? which exactly fills the vacant space. We may 
then restore in 1. 2 AtKeXerjs and thus have four denies of Hippo- 
thontis. In conclusion, not one of the names which Kohler 
would bring under Kiresidai and Sphettos occurs in those demes in 
other inscriptions, while according to my restitution there are 
four such examples of coincidence. 1 From these facts it is clear 
that Anakaia belonged to Hippothontis alone down to 307/6 B.C. 
and probable that it was not transferred to Demetrias during the 
existence of that tribe. The complexion of Demetrias, according 
to the present known facts, is then as follows : 





Deme. 




Original Tribe 


I. 

2. 


Hippotomadai 
Kothokidai 


} 


Oineis. 


3- 

4- 


Melite 
Xypete 


1 

j 


Kekropis. 


5- 


Koile 




Hippothontis. 


6. 
7- 


Atene 
Thorai 


1 


Antiochis. 



This discussion of Demetrias shows that there are seven 
demes known to have belonged to it, all of which were taken 
from the latter half of the list of the original ten tribes, two 
each from Oineis, Kekropis, and Antiochis, and one from 



through the kindness of Dr. A. Wilhelm, I have received, since writing 
the above, an impression of this inscription, which shows an E complete 
except that the central horizontal is wanting. This makes my restoration 
certain. 



26 The Five Post-Kleisthenean Tribes. 

Hippothontis ; also that no one of these seven denies be- 
longed to its former tribe from 307-200 B.C. 

From a survey of the source of the demes constituting the two 
tribes, Antigonis and Demetrias, it becomes apparent that the 
Athenians followed a definite scheme in assigning demes to them. 
Inasmuch as seven of the original tribes furnished two demes 
each, it might properly be inferred that the plan was to take two 
demes from each tribe, and furthermore to draw upon the first five 
for Antigonis, and upon the last five for Demetrias. Such a 
scheme would be natural in view of the fact that both tribes were 
created at the same time and given the relative order corresponding 
respectively to father and son. This arrangement is thoroughly 
in accord with the inscriptional evidence which we now possess. 



CHAPTER II. 
PTOLEMAIS. 

§ i. Evidence for the Existence of Thirteen Tribes. 

Until recent years, it had generally been supposed that after 
Ptolemais was created there were only eleven tribes at Athens, or 
at most, twelve. This view has been disproved by the discovery 
of an important inscription published by D. Philios in the 
'Ec^/xepts 'Apx<uo\oyLKrj for 1 887. It is now certain that in the 
latter part of the third century B.C. the Athenians had thirteen 
tribes. The evidence for this view is complete. 

(1) In IV. 2, 385 d, 223/2 B.C., the date of the decree is the 
3rd of Skirophorion, the last month of the Athenian year, coin- 
ciding with the 3rd of the thirteenth prytany. The mention of a 
thirteenth prytany would of itself show that there were thirteen 
tribes to prytanize, for each tribe held one and only one prytany 
during the same year. Furthermore, in the same inscription 
there is additional testimony. The boule, as stated here, con- 
sisted of 650 members, and as each tribe furnished 50 members 
there must have been thirteen tribes. 

(2) In IV. 2, 385 f, 226/5 or 2I 3/ 2 B.C. the date of the decree 
is the 10th of Thargelion, the eleventh month, coinciding with 
the 6th of the twelfth prytany. This again indicates thirteen 
prytanies, hence thirteen tribes. 

(3) In II. 431, 220/19 B.C. we have the record of two decrees, 
the former falling in Boedromion and the 20+th of the third 
prytany, the latter in the same month, either the 27th or 28th, 
but on the third of the fourth prytany. This could occur only 
when there were thirteen tribes. For then in a common year, of 
the prytanies, three had twenty-eight days and the remaining ten 
twenty-seven each. 

(4) In II. 392 1. 8 (last quarter of the third century B.C.) 1 

*Cf. IV. 2, 385 c. 



28 The Five Post-Kleisthenean Tribes. 

the month is Skirophorion ; the prytany, as restored, is the 
twelfth. A more accurate restoration is, after 8, 9, 10, or 11 
letters for the tribe, rpLTrjs kcu SeKarrjs irpvr. For by filling in the 
inscription entirely on one side we can obtain the approximate 
length of each full line. This proves to be 50 letter spaces. It 
is evident that after rrjs 1. 8 a whole line, minus the amount left 
in 1. 9, must be restored. There are 19 letters left in 1. 9. Sub- 
tracting 19 from 50 we get 31, the approximate number of letters 
to be restored after rrjs. The maximum number of letters in the 
name of the tribe is 11 (Hippothontis, the longest tribe name, 
was represented among the proedroi and consequently could not 
have been the prytauizing tribe). Trying SwSeKarr/s we get 
11+9 + 4=24 for the number of letters, whereas we should have 
about 31 ; with TptV^s kcu SeKdrrjs we have 11 + 16 + 4=31 the re- 
quired number. We may then confidently restore Tpir-qs kcu 
&eKaTr]<s as the number of the prytany. 

(5) As accumulative evidence we may cite the archon lists 
(p. 2 ff.). In list 4 f 234/3 B.C.) the occurrence together of 
thesmothetai No. 1 of Iyamptrai and No. 2 of Thorai, shows that 
Autigonis and Demetrias were both in existence at this time. In 
list 8 (229/8 B.C.) the presence of thesmothetai No. 1 of Aitha- 
lidai and No. 5 of Aigilia proves the co-existence of Antigonis 
and Ptolemais ; and the fact that the fiamXevs is from Atene tends 
to prove that the two tribes, Antigonis and Demetrias, were not 
merged in one. In list 11 (224/3 B.C.) the presence of thesmo- 
thetai No. 1 from Atene and No. 4 from Aphidna proves again 
the co-existence of Demetrias and Ptolemais. So in list 13 
(222/1 B.C.) among the thesmothetai are representatives from 
both Antigonis and Ptolemais. These facts can leave no doubt 
that the three tribes, Antigonis, Demetrias, and Ptolemais, ex- 
isted side by side during the last quarter of the third century 
B.C. 

§ 2. Evidence for Dating the Creation of Ptolemais. 

a. Paus. I. 5, 5. OtSe fxev elcriv 'A^i/aiois €7rwvv/xot rwv dp^atwv. 
vcrrepov Se kcu oltto ru>v8e <f>v\a<s e)(ovcnv, 'AttciXov tov M.vcrov kcu YlroXe- 
puaiov tov PuyvTTTtov kcu kclt €yu,€ yjht) /?acriAe<D5 'ASpiavov k. t. A. 



Ptolemais. 29 

Pans. I. 6, 8. Tavrrjs ty}s ywaiKos (Berenike) epaaOeU (Ptolemy 
Soter) 7raiSas e£ avr^s iiroiyaaTO koI a)? rjv 01 ttXyjctiov Yf TeXevrrj, UroXe- 
pxxiov ( Ptolemy PhiladelpllUS ) d7re'A.i7r£v Alyvirrov (3a<nXeveLV, d<£' ov 
/cat 'AOrjvatoLS iarlv rj <f>vXr}, yeyovoYa i< HepevcKrjs, aXX* ovk Ik rrj<s 
'AvTiTrdrpov Ovyarpos (Kurydike). 

Pans. I. 8, 6. twv Se aAAcov 6 yaei/ $tXa8eA<^>os etrriv ov Kat irporepov 
pvrjp.r)V iv rols itraivvpLOis liroL-qa-dp.-qv . 

From this testimony it is evident that Pansanias regarded 
Ptolemy Philadelphus as the eponymos of Ptolemais. And if he 
were correct, it would necessitate the assumption that the tribe 
was created not later than 247 B.C., the date of Ptolemy 
Philadelphus' death. From evidence which will be adduced 
later, it will be proved that Ptolemais was not created so early, 
and therefore Pausanias' statement must be attributed to his inac- 
curate historical knowledge betrayed in many other instances. 

Another piece of evidence which caused this early date to seem 
the probable one, is that furnished by an epigram of Kallimachos, 1 
whose death occurred about 240 B.C. This runs : 

*Hv Si£?7 Ttpxip^ov iv*A'i,$o<s, 6<j>pa TcvBr\ai 

yj tl Trepl ^/vyrj^j rj iraXi 7ro>? ecrecu, 
Si£e<x#ai (pvXrjs IlToA.€//.aiSos, vlea 7raTp6? 

Uavaavtov * S^eis 8' avrov iv evaefiiwv. 

Beloch dismisses this evidence with the remark that either 
Kallimachos is not the author or he lived much later than is 
generall}^ supposed. There is a more plausible explanation. 
There was a tribe called Ptolemais at Alexandria, as shown by 
the following taken from Westermann's fiioypa<j>oi p. 50. 'AttoAAwvios 
6 twv ' ApywvavTLKwv 7rotr)T7]<s to fxkv yevos ' AXe^avSpevs , uios Se ^lAAeoos, us 
Si nve? 'IAAews, <f>vXrjs Ilr oXe/xat 80s . That Timarchos was from this 
Ptolemais is rendered probable from two considerations. First, 
an Athenian citizen was generally mentioned not as a resident of 
this or that tribe but of a certain deme. Secondly, the associa- 
tion of Timarchos with Apollonios and others at the court of 

1 Anthol. Graec. VII. 520 



30 The Five Post-Kleisthenean Tribes. 

Ptolemy Buergetes ; cf . Suiads : ' AttoWuvlos ' AXe^avSpevs iiruv 
7rocrjTrj<;, Btarpiif/as iv 'PoSa>, vlbs 2tAA.ea>? ? fxa0r}T7]<; KaAAt /xd^ov, avy^povos 
JijpaTOcrOevovs Kat Etic^oyotWo? /cat Tifxap^pv^ iirX IlToAe/xatov tov evepyirov 
i7TLKXr)0evTO<s, Kat StaSo^os 'EpaTcxr^evous yevo/xevos iv ry irpovTao-ia ty}s 
iv ' AXe^avSpeta (3tf3Xto0yKrf^. 

b. Having thus explained the two passages above which indi- 
cate an early date, let us see what proof may be advanced for another 
dating. Under Attalis and Hadrianis which were later created there 
appear two new denies, Apollonieis and Antinoeis. These were 
named in honor of persons intimately associated with the epony- 
moi of their respective tribes ; the former from Apollonis, the 
wife of Attalos, the latter from Antinoos, the favorite of Hadrian. 
In like manner, there appears a new deme under Ptolemais, 
namely, Berenikidai. The name itself suggests Berenike as the 
person after whom the deme was named. We are naturally led 
to expect that this Berenike stood in some close relation to the 
Ptolemy who was eponymos of the new tribe. The only persons 
named Berenike who stood in such a relation to any of the Ptole- 
mies are, first, Berenike, the second wife of Ptolemy Lagus, and 
mother of Ptolemy Philadelphia ; secondly, Berenike, the daughter 
of Ptolemy Philadelphia, who was married to Antiochos Theos, 
king of Syria, and put to death by her rival Eaodike about 247 
B.C. ; thirdly, Berenike, queen of Cyrene, and afterwards wife of 
Ptolemy Euergetes ( 247-222 B.C. ) That the deme was named 
after this last Berenike is expressly stated by Stephanos of Byzan- 
tioil, who says : BepeviKtSat, &r}p,os rrjs IlToAcfta'tSo? <f)vXr}s. SeKa yap 
<f>vXas ZxpvTes AO-qvaloi 7rpoa-i0ecrav 8vo, 'AvrtyovtSa /cat Arj/nrfTptdSa 
KaXovvTts, varepov Se 'ArraAtSa Kat IlToAe//,atSa, Sta rwv iTroivvpuov 
evepyeryjOevTes /JacrtAeW. . . . arro Se /SepevLKrjs t^s Maya Ovyarpos, 
yvvaiKo? Se UroXep,aLOv, oyvopidcrOrjcrav /3epevLKL8ai ol SrjfxoTat. 

Thus we determine that it was Berenike, queen of Cyrene, after 
whom the deme was named. But there may still be some ques- 
tion as to whether the eponymos of the tribe was her husband, 
Ptolemy Euergetes, or her son, Ptolemy Philopator. It can 
scarcely be the latter, for the relation existing between Ptolemy 
Philopator and his mother was not such asto admit this possibility. 



Ptolemais. 3 1 

As is well known, soon after succeeding to the throne in 222 B.C. 
he consented to the assassination of his mother. 1 We must there- 
fore assume that the tribe was created in honor of Ptolemy Euer- 
getes and hence not later than 222 B.C., the date of his death. 

Let us now seek to define more closely the date of its creation. 
For this purpose our archon lists furnish the desired evidence. In 
236/5 B.C. Phlya which was reallotted to Ptolemais is still under 
its old tribe, Kekropis. The same is true for 233/2 B.C. Ptole- 
mais, therefore, was not yet created. But in 229/8 B.C. we find 
Ptolemais represented on the board of thesmothetai, and so in 
nearly every year after this for which we have such lists. The 
limits thus obtained are 233/2 — 229/8 B.C. On historical evidence 
it can be shown that the latter date is probably the exact year in 
which the tribe was instituted. It was not till this date that 
Athens was freed from Macedonia, and as this country was hostile 
to Ptolemy it is inconceivable that the Athenians could have cre- 
ated a tribe in his honor while they were still under Macedonian 
domination. 

As seen in the case of Antigonis and Demetrias, the tribes were 
instituted in honor of the eponymos in return for some service on 
his part. The same is true for Attalis and Hadrianis, as will be 
seen later. We should therefore expect to find that Ptolemy had 
shown himself the benefactor of the Athenians thereby receiving 
this extraordinary honor. We are not left entirely without evi- 
dence of his benefaction. In 229 B.C., occurred the death of De- 
metrios II. of Macedonia, and the accession to the throne of An- 
tigonos Doson. It was at this time that Diogenes, the Macedo- 
nian general in command of the garrison in Athens, was induced 
by Aratos to deliver the city to the Athenians on payment of 150 
talents. This sum was advanced to the Athenians, nominally, by 
Aratos, but in reality by Ptolemy who required that the city should 
remain independent. 2 It is therefore highly probable that it was 
in recognition of this favor that the Athenians created the tribe 

^olyb. XV. 25 and V. 36-39. 

2 Holm Hist, of Greece, IV. p. 228 ff. English translation. 



32 The Five Post-Kleisthenean Tribes. 

Ptolemais. The Athenians most prominent in this transaction 
were the two brothers Mikion and Eurykleides 1 who showed a de- 
cided leaning toward the Ptolemies. 2 We can even imagine that 
it was at their instigation that the tribe was instituted. 

Kohler's assumption that the tribe was created during the reign 
of Ptolemy Philopator 3 rests upon a wrong interpretation of IV. 2, 
385 c, the date of which is 237/6 B.C. and is not to be con- 
nected with the particular state of affairs in Crete recorded by 
Polybios IV. 53-55 and VII. 12. 

§ 3. Tribal Order of Ptolemais. 

When Ptolemais was created there were already twelve tribes in 
existence. Ptolemais was given the seventh place. Again, 
when Hadrianis was created later, there was the same number and 
Hadrianis on this occasion was given the seventh place. This is a 
striking coincidence and probably has a natural cause. It does 
not seem likely that the Athenians assigned them the seventh 
place in the official tribal order merely to make an equal division 
of the preexisting twelve, for if so we might reasonably expect 
a similar procedure in the case of Antigonis and Demetrias. I be- 
lieve there is a more satisfactory explanation. It will be observed 
that this position in the tribal order is exactly analogous to that of 
the intercalary month in the Athenian calendar. This fact sug- 
gests the possibility that Ptolemais and Hadrianis were given the 
seventh position to bring them into some relation with that month. 
This view finds some confirmation in the fact that, after the crea- 
tion of Hadrianis, the intercalary month was called Hadrianion. 4 

§ 4. DEMES OF PTOLEMAIS. 

1. Themakos. This deme was situated close to the city as in- 
dicated by Andoc. De Mysteriis 17. From the topographical 
references in this speech one would naturally infer that Themakos 

T II. 379; Plut. Arat. 34 and 41 ; Kohler, Hermes VII. p. 3ff. 
2 Polyb. V. 106. 3 See his note to IV. 2, 385 c. 
4 III. 1121, 1124, 1138, 1188, and 1217. 



Ptolemais. 33 

was to be located southeast of the city. Its tribal relation is in- 
dicated by the following table : 

A. Erechtheis. 

II. 995, 4th Cent. B.C. 

B. Ptolemais. 

II. 471, 123/2 B.C. II. 469, 107/6 B.C. 

II. 470, 1 19/8 B.C. II. 465, 105/4 B.C. 

2. Ikaria. (See under Antigonis. p. 9 if.). 

3. Kydantidai. Its location is unknown. There is no inscrip- 
tional evidence to prove that this deme was transferred to 
Ptolemais. The only authority for such a transference is the 
testimony of Phrynichos in Stephanos of Byzantion. His state- 
ments in regard to the demes are invariably reliable. In the 
absence of any evidence to the contrary, we may safely class it 
among the demes of Ptolemais. It occurs in inscriptions only 
once after 229 B.C. It is not impossible that its name was 
changed and that it is to be identified with some of the new 
demes found under Ptolemais. Its tribal relations is : 

A. Aigeis. 

IV. 2, 995 b, First half of 4th II. 1020, ca. 330 B.C. 

Cent. B.C. II. 943, 325/4 B.C. 

II. 870, Mid. of 4th Cent. B.C. II. 329, ca. 273/2 B.C. 
II. 872, 341/0 B C. IV. 2, 385 b, 237/6 B.C. 

II. 172, 340-336 B.C. 

4. Konthyle. The exact situation is not known, but it is gen- 
erally assigned to the inland trittys of Pandionis, the chief deme of 
which is Paiania. That it belonged to both tribes is also stated 
by the scholiast on Aristoph. Wasps, 233. The inscriptions show- 
ing its tribe are : 



34 



7*he Five Post-Kleisthenean Tribes. 



A. Pandionis. 
II. 865, 4th Cent. B. C. II. 873, ca. End of 4th Cent. 

II. 698, 351/0 B. C. B. C. 

IV. 2, 871 b, ca. Mid. of 4th IV. 2, 565 b, 303/2 B. C. 
Cent. B. C. 

B. Ptolemais. 

IV. 2, 477 d, 108/7 B.C. III. 1 163, 201/2 A. D. 

5. Hekale. The deme is to be sought in the inland trittys of 
Leontis. The legend which states that Theseus was entertained 
here by Hekale on his way to Marathon to slay the Marathonian 
bull, indicates that it was on the route to Marathon. Its tribal re- 
lation is indicated as follows : 

A. Leontis. 

II. 864, 4th Cent. B. C. II. 942, 329/8 B. C. 

II. 1237, 364/3 B. C. II. 1040, Mid. of 3rd Cent. B. C. 

B. Ptolemais. 

IV. 2, 477 c, 153/2 B. C. IV. 2, 477 d, 108/7 B. C. 

II. 956, Latter half of 2nd Cent. II. 469, 107/6 B. C. . 
B. C. III. 1153, ca. 190 A. D. 

6. Prospalta. The site of this deme was at or near the modern 
village, Kalybia, in the Mesogeion. This is shown by the 
sepulchral steles 1 found here, and this general locality for it is 
indicated by the mortgage record found at Porto Raphti. 2 In the 
deme there was a temple of Demeter and Kore. 3 Its tribal con- 
nection is indicated in the following table : 

A. Akamantis. 

II. 660, 389/8 B. C. II. 943, 325/4 B. C. 

II. 1017, 350-250 B. C. II. Add. 252 b, 305/4 B. C.(?) 

II. 1020, ca. 330 B. C. IV. 2, 385 b, 237/6 B. C. 

II. 942, 329/8 B. C. 



II. 2512 and 2515. 2 IV. 2, 1142 c 3 Paus. I. 31, 1. 



Ptolemais. 35 

B. Ptolemais. 

II. 470, 119/8 B. C. III. 1 138, 174/5 A. D. 

II. 469, 107/6 B. C. III. 1 163, 201/2 A. D. 

II. 482, 38/7 B. C. 

7. Boutadai. Boutadai probata was situated in the city trittys 
of Oineis, the chief deme of which was Lakiadai. 4 Stephanos of 
Byzantion says that it was a deme of Aigeis. This statement is 
not borne out h\ inscriptional evidence. The evidence for its 
tribal relation is as follows : 

A. Oineis. 

II. 803d, 378/7 B.C. IV. 2, 868 b, Latter half of 4th 

II. 868, 360/59 B.C. Cent. B.C. 

B. Ptolemais. 

II. 421, 141/0 B.C. III. 1121, 155/6 A.D. 

II. 470, 1 1 9/8 B.C. III. 1153, ca. 190 A.D. 

III. 1277, 23/2 B.C. III. 1176, ca. 219/20 A.D. 

8. Phlya. Harpokration says that Euripides was from this deme. 
The literary evidence as to its tribe is the testimony of Hesychios 
and the scholium to Aristoph. Wasps, 234. In both of these 
it is said to be a deme of Ptolemais. Its location is well indicated 
by the fact that it and Athmonou were contiguous. In III. 61 
A col. II. 1. 13, a piece of property is mentioned as situated in 
both Phlya and Athmonon. As the identification of Athmonon 
with the modern Marousi is certain, we may locate Phlya at Cha- 
landri close to Marousi. This site is indicated farther by a sepul- 
chral stele found here 2 and by a mortgage record 3 found at So- 
charia near Marousi, which stated that the value of a piece of land 
over and above one talent reserved as securhy for a wife's dowry, 



x See Milchhofer, Untersuch. iiber d. Demenordnung d. Kleisthenes, 
p. 27. 

*1I. 2646. 3 II. 1 1 13. 



36 The Five Post-Kleisthenean Tribes. 

guaranteed a loan made by the Phlyans, the L,ycomidai, and the 
Kekropidai. Its tribal relation is indicated by numerous inscrip- 
tions, as : 

A. Kekropis. 

II. 1 176, Beg. of 4th Cent. B.C. II. 701, 345/4 B.C. 

II. 644, 399/8 B.C. II. 562, 339/8 B.C. 

II. 652, 398/7 B.C. IV. 2, 767 b, 332/1 B.C. 

II. 670, 377/6 B.C. II. 943. 325/4 B.C. 

II. 803 d, 360/59 B.C. II. 944, ca. 325/4 B.C. 

II. 866, ca. 360 B.C. II. 245, Before 307/6 B.C. 

IV. 2, 556 b, 352/1 B.C. II. 316, 283/2 B.C. 

II. 698, 351/0 B.C. II. 859, 236/5 B.C. 

II. 75, 346/5 B.C. II.859, 233/2 B.C. 









B. Ptolemais. 




II. 


956, 


Latter half of 2nd Cent. 


III. 


1092, 


105/6 A.D. 




B.C 


k 




III. 


1113, 


143/4 A.D. 


Bulletin 


17, p. 146, 


129/8 B.C. 


III. 


1113a, 143/4 A.D 


II. 


47i, 


123/2 B.C. 




III. 


1114, 


146/7 A.D. 


II. 


47o, 


1 1 9/8 B.C. 




III. 


1124, 


148/9 A.D. 



Bulletin, 17, p. 147, 117/6 B.C. III. 1119, ca. 150 A.D. 

IV. 2, 477 d, 108/7 B.C. III. 1121, 155/6 A.D. 

II. 469, 107/6 B.C. III. 1 128, 164/5 A - D - 

II. 465, 105/4 B.C. HI. 1133. 170/1 A.D. 

II. 467, 102/1 B.C. III. 1 138, 174/5 A.D. 

II. 863, First half of 1st Cent. III. 1142, ca. 180 A.D. 

B.C. III. 1 147. 190/1 A.D. 

II. 482, 38/7 B.C. III. 1 160, 192/3 A.D. 

III. 1277, 23/2 B.C. III. 1163, 201/2 A.D. 
III. 1008, 14-37 A. D. III. 1171, 205/6 A.D. 

III. 1076, 22/3 A.D. III. 1176, ca. 219/20 A.D. 

III. 1091, 85/6 A.D. III. 1186, ca. 225 A.D. 
III. 1093, 103/4A.D. 

9. Oinoe. According to Harpokration this deme was located 

near Eleutherai. His assertion is substantiated by the evidence 



Ptolemais. 37 

of other writers \ There was another deme called Oinoe which 
will be mentioned under Attalis. The tribal relation of the former 
is indicated as follows : 

A. Hippothontis . 

II. 804 A, 333/2 B.C. II. 944, ca. 325/4 B.C. 

II. 943, 325/4 B.C. II. 1013, ? 

B. Ptolemais. 

II. 956, Latter half of 2nd Cent. II. 469, 107/6 B.C. 
B.C. 

10. Aphidna. Nikandros of Thyateira (before 350 A. D. ) is 
authority for the statement that Aphidna, Perrhidai, Titakidai, 
and Thyrgonidai were transferred from Aiantis 2 ; and so far as 
there is any inscriptional evidence at hand it is in accord with this 
testimony. The provenience of only two sepulchral steles can be 
cited to show the location ; these are from Patissia 3 and Menidi * ; 
but the evidence afforded by the decree in Dem. XVIII. 38, forces 
us to look for the deme at a greater distance from Athens and 
nearer the frontier. The order in which the places, where arti- 
cles were to be collected, are mentioned, is extremely significant ; 
it is : Eleusis,Phyle, Aphidna, Rhamnous, and Sounion. Although 
the decree is probably spurious the facts presented in it are of 
value in locating the deme Aphidna. They indicate that it was 
near the northern frontier of Attica, between Phyle and Rham- 
nous. Milchhofer identifies it with the modern Kotroni, on the 
left bank of the Charadra, some distance above Marathon. 5 Its 
tribal connection is shown in the following table : 

1 Her. V. 74 ; Thuc. II. 18, VIII. 98 ; Diod. Sic. IV. 60 ; Plin. IV. 7, n. 
2 Cf. Harpokration s. v. Qvpywvidai 

3 II. 1911. 4 IV. 2, 1893 b. 

5 Cf . also S. Wide, Aphidna in Nordattika, Mitth. d. d. Arch. Inst. XXI. 
P- 385 A- 



38 The Five Post-Kleisthenean Tribes. 

A. Aiantis. 

I. 299, ca. 444 B. C. II. 803 b, 342/1 B. C. 
IV. 2, Add. 556 d, First half of II. 943, 325/4 B. C. 

4th Cent. B. C. II. 944, ca. 325/4 B. C. 

II. 652, 398/7 B. C. IV. 2, 184 b, Before 322/1 B. C. 
II. 696, ca. Mid. of 4th Cent. II. 324, 275/4 B. C. 

B. C. IV. 2, 381 b, 235/4 B. C. 

B. Ptolemais. 

II. 859, 224/3 B. C. II. 467, 102/1 B. C. 

II. 471, 123/2 B. C. II. 985, 98/7 B. C. 

II. 470, 1 19/8 B. C. II. 482, 38/7 B. C. 

II. 469, 107/6 B. C. III. 1076, 22/3 A. D. 

II. 465, 105/4 B. C. 

C. Hadrianis. 

III. 1 1 13 a, 143/4 A. D. III. 1 160, 192/3 A. D. 

11. Titakidai. For the location see under Perrhidai. Its 
earlier tribal relation is vouched for by Nikandros who says it was 
a deme of Aiantis. 1 Stephanos of Byzantion says it belonged to 
Antiochis. I should prefer the testimony of Nikandros. The 
deme was named in honor of Titakos who betrayed Aphidna to 
the Dioskouroi. The inscriptions which show its tribe are : 

A. Ptolemais. 
III. 1124, 148/9 A. D. III. 1121, 155/6 A.D. 

12. Thyrgonidai. For location see under Perrhidai. There is 
no positive inscriptional evidence of its tribal relation, but in II. 
991 there is left on the stone ©Y-, the initial letters of some deme 
name belonging to Ptolemais. In the light of Nikandros' statement 
noted at p. 37, and the testimony of Demetrios of Skepsis (before 
350 A. D. ) to the same effect, it is safe to assume that ©vpywviSai 
should be restored in this inscription. 

1 See under Aphidna. 



Ptolemais. 39 

13. Perrhidai. The general location of this deme can be in- 
ferred with considerable certainty from the testimony of Hesychios, 
who says it was a deme of Attica in Aphidna. From this state- 
ment and that of Nikandros, it is indicated that Titakidai, Thyr- 
gonidai, and Perrhidai bore some close relation to Aphidna. This 
is further corroborated by the fact that all four were transferred 
to Ptolemais. They may have formed a tetrapolis as in the case 
of Marathon, Oinoe, Trikorynthos, and Probalinthos. What- 
ever the close connection may have been, it shows that the three 
must be sought for in the neighborhood of Aphidna. In II. 991, 
IIE-, the initial letters of some deme of Ptolemais are left on the 
stone ; these may be for IleppiSai. Aside from this, there is no 
inscriptional evidence for its tribal relation. Here too, Stephanos 
of Byzantion is probably in error in assigning Perrhidai to 
Antiochis. 

14. Aigilia. The site of this deme is identified with the modern 
village Olympos. This general locality is indicated by Strabo 1 . 
The deme was famed for its dried figs. 2 The inscriptions 
which indicate its tribal connection are : 

A. Antiochis. 

II. 644, 399/8 B. C. II. 943, 325/4 B. C. 

II. 869, ca. Mid. of 4th Cent. II. 944, ca. 325/4 B. C. 

B. C. IV. 2, 269 b, 302/1 B. C. 

II. 114 C, 343/2 B. C. 

B. Ptolemais. 

II. 859, 229/8 B. C. II. 469, 107/6 B. C. 

IV. 2, 407 k, 189/8 B. C. II. 467, 102/1 B. C. 

II. 956, Latter half 2d Cent. B.C. 

15. Melainai. There is no inscriptional evidence of its tribe 
prior to the time of Ptolemais. Stephanos of Byzantion states 
that it belonged to Antiochis. His testimony is questioned by 
Loper. 3 According to Polyainos I. 19, it was a fortified place on 

'Strab. IX. 398. 

2 Cf . Philemon in Athen. XIV. 652 e. and Theocr. I. 147. 

3 Mitth. d. d. arch. Inst. XVII. p. 426 N. 1. 



40 The Five Post-Kleisthenean Tribes. 






the confines of Attica and Boeotia. Here, according to the legend, 
Melanthos, the Athenian general, gained a victory over Xanthios, 
the Boeotian, by a strategem, in commemoration of which 
an annual festival, called the Apatouria, as if from avarr), was 
instituted. Reasoning from the fact that the Apatouria was cele- 
brated in Panaktou, Milchhofer concludes that Melainai was situ- 
ated near this place, which was in the plain now called Skurta, 
above the modern village of Kuvasala. As shown by II. 991., it 
belonged to Ptolemais in the early history of that tribe. It is men- 
tioned only once more in connection with any tribe, viz. — III. 
1 1 47, 1 90/ 1 A. D. where it is under Ptolemais. 

16. Pentele. This was located in the vicinity of the marble 
quarries, probably on the site of the modern convent Mendeli. It 
gave its name to the celebrated Pentelic marble and furnished a 
new name to the mountains, formerly called Brilessos. Here 
again, we have no inscriptional data to determine its tribe prior to 
the time of Ptolemais. Stephanos of Byzantion states that it be- 
longed to Antiochis. Since the inland trittys of Antiochis in- 
cluded this section of Attica, we may accept his testimony. The 
deme is mentioned as early as the fifth century B. C. Its later 
tribal relation is shown by one inscription : 

A. Ptolemais. 
III. 1133, 170/1 A.D. 

17. Kolone (?). The site of this Kolone is not known. The in- 
scriptional evidence for its tribe is as follows : 

A. Aigeis. 

II. 643, 400/399 B.C. II. 324, 275/4 B.C. 

II. 660, 390/89 B.C. II. 338, 273/2 B.C. 

II. 870, Mid. of 4th Cent. B.C. II. 329, 272/1 B.C. 
II. 872, 341/0 B.C. II. 859, 237/6 B.C. 

IV. 2, 1025 b, Before 307/6 B.C. II. 471, 123/2 B.C. 
II. 1023, ca. End of 4th Cent.* II. 469, 107/6 B.C. 
B.C. II. 465, 105/4 B.C. 



Ptolemais. 41 

In all but two of these references 1 the demesman is cited as 

€K KoAtoVOV. 

B. Leontis. 

II. 864, 4th Cent. B.C. Bulletin 17, p. 147, 118/7 B.C. 

II. 799 c, 369/8 B.C. III. 1076, 22/3 A.D. 

II. 991, ca. 200 B.C. III. 1091, 85/6 A.D. 

II. 470, 119/8 B.C. III. 1128, 164/5 A.D. 

In every case under Leontis the citation has KoXuvfjOtv or 
I£.o\a)vr}<; . 

C. Antiochis. 

II. 869, Mid. of 4th Cent. B.C. II. 944, ca. 325/4 B.C. 

In both cases the plural form Ko\(Dw}<s(-eLs) is given which 
points to a singular KoAwveus for which KoXoyvrjOev would probably 
have been written just as under Leontis. Compare ' Ay KvXrjs (-els) 
but singular 'AyKvXyjOev. 

D. Ptolanais. 

II. 471, 123/2 B.C. III. 1128, 164/5 A.D. 

III. 1093, 103/4 A.D. III. 1 138, 174/5 A.D. 
III. 1120, 1 50/ 1 A.D. III. 1153, ca. 190 A.D. 

Here we find only KoAwvi^ev. 

As KoAwvos would not yield KoXuvrjOev nor KoAwv^s for the 
demotikon, it is apparent that there were two different names, 
KoAwvos and KoAwv^. The deme of the former name belonged 
only to Aigeis. There were two demes of the latter name, as 
shown by the fact that it is found belonging to two different 
tribes at one and the same period. This is not infrequently the 
case with demes which owe their names to some local characteris- 
tic as Kolone does. 2 Inasmuch as the Kolone of Leontis re- 
mained in this tribe throughout Roman times, and that of Antio- 

1 II. 643 and II. 1023. 

2 Cf . Halai, Oinoe, Oion, Potamos, Eitea, etc. 



42 The Five Post-Kleisthenean Tribes. 

chis did not, it is doubtless the latter one that is found under 
Ptolemais. 

1 8. Semachidai. This deme together with Ikaria and Plotheia 
formed the Bpakria, 1 and inasmuch as the exact site of the last 
two demes is known, the general location of Semachidai is also 
determinable. Semachidai is found under Antiochis and Ptole- 
mais at the same time. Dittenberger 2 expresses the opinion that 
we have here a confusion with Themakos. This involves the 
change of a single letter, for in late times, the demotikon was gen- 
erally abbreviated. Accordingly we find © H M A and 2HMA 
regularly for Themakos and Semachidai. His explanation, how- 
ever, seems extremely fanciful and is disproved by the facts. 
2HMA surely stands for Semachidai, for the same name men- 
tioned in III. 1 1 28 with the demotikon SHMA recurs in III. 
1 1 29 with the demotikon 3HMAX which can stand only for 
Semachidai. I think a more likely explanation is that Sema- 
chidai was a double deme like Agryle, L,amptrai, Paiania, 
Pergase, Potamos, etc. I suspect there are many more such 
double demes. Indeed it is only recently that an inscription was 
found proving this to be the case with Potamos. The inscrip- 
tions showing the tribe of Semachidai are : 

A. Antiochis. 

II. 869, Mid. of 4th Cent, II. 467, 102/1 B. C. 

B. C. II. 481, 45/4 B. C. 

II. 943, 325/4 B. C. III. 1 138, 174/5 A. D. 

II. 471, 123/2 B. C. III. 1036, ca. 200 A. D. 

II. 470, 1 19/8 B. C. III. 1 163, 201/2 A. D. 

II. 465, 107/6 B. C. III. 1171, 205/6 A. D. 

B. Ptolemais. 

III. 1128, 164/5 A. D. III. 1171, 205/6 A. D. 

Perhaps Semachidai is the deme name in II. 991 which Kohler 
doubtfully transcribes by [SA - - - ] . The reading must have 

a Cf. Papers of the American School, V. p. 47 ff. 
'Hermes IX. p. 385 ff. 






Ptolemais. 43 

been indistinct when he examined the stone, for even earlier 
editors did not succeed in deciphering anything. 

19. Berenikidai. As mentioned previously in this paper, Bere- 
nikidai was named in honor of Berenike, queen of Cyrene. Prob- 
ably this should be interpreted as meaning that some preexisting 
deme was re-named, for it seems hardly reasonable to suppose that 
a new deme was created outright. Inasmuch as it naturally occurs 
under Ptolemais only it is unnecessary to give the inscriptions 
in which its tribe is indicated. The references are very numerous. 

20. Hyporeia. The only indication of the site of this deme is 
the name, which means sub monte. It may have been situated 
on the slope of Mt. Kithairon. The evidence for its tribal rela- 
tion is II. 991 where it is among the demes of Ptolemais. It 
occurs again in III. 1122, 156/7 A. D. with no indication of its 
tribe. 

21. Petaliai. At the entrance to the Buripos, close to the 
southern extremity of Euboia, there are four small islands called 
Petaliai. I think it is not over bold to assume that these islands 
came to be represented in the Athenian government at some 
period, possibly not until Roman times. The name occurs only 
once (III. 1 124, 148/9 A. D.) and there under Ptolemais. 

22. Akyaieis. Nothing is known in regard to this deme except 
its existence as a deme of Ptolemais. It is possibly a late addition. 
The inscriptions in which its tribe is given are : 

A. Ptolemais. 
III. 1113 a, 143/4 A. D. III. 1121, 155/6 A.D. 

23. Bunostidai. Nothing is known about the location and 
earlier tribal relation of Bunostidai. It is enumerated among the 
demes of Ptolemais in II. 991. This attests its existence as early 
as 200 B. C. The inscriptions which show its tribal connection are : 

A. Ptolemais. 

II. 991, ca. 200 B.C. III. 1138, 174/5 A.D. 

III. 1121, 155/6 A.D. 



44 



The Five Post-Kleisthenean Tribes. 



24. Klopidai. This deme appears to have existed before the 

time of Ptolemais. 1 In II. 991 K A O should perhaps be read 

instead of Kohler's EAfl , 2 the initial letters of some deme 

of Ptolemais. Aristophanes ( Knights, 79 ) uses iv KAoo7riS(oi/, 
which is commonly interpreted as a play on Kropidai. Since his 
purpose was to use some word which would suggest thievishness 
and such a word was at hand in Klopidai, I see no reason to sup- 
pose that he used Klopidai for Kropidai. In III. 1121, 155/6 
A. D. , it occurs under Ptolemais. 

The following list of denies with their original tribes will reveal 
the composition of Ptolemais : 



Deme. 

1. Themakos 

2. Ikaria 

3. Kydantidai 

4. Konthyle 

5. Hekale, 

6. Prospalta 

7. Boutadai 

8. Phlya 

9. Oinoe 

10. Aphidna 

11. Perrhidai 

12. Ttryrgonidai 

13. Titakidai 

14. Aigilia 

15. Kolone 

16. Melainai (?) ► 

17. Pentele 

18. Semachidai J 

19. Akyaieis ^ 

20. Berenikidai 

21. Eunostidai I 

22. Hyporeia 

23. Klopidai 

24. Petaliai 



Original tribe. 

Erechtheis. 

Aigeis. 

Pandionis. 

L,eontis. 

Akamantis. 

Oineis. 

Kekropis. 

Hippothontis. 

Aiantis. 



Antiochis. 



! 



Former tribe not determin- 
able. 



From this examination of the demes of Ptolemais, the following 
facts are ascertained. First, that of the twenty-four demes be- 



ll. 788 A. 2 No such deme is known. 



Ptolemais. 45 

longing here, twenty-two, according to the evidence presented, ex- 
isted as early as 200 B.C. The other two, Petaliai and Akyaieis, 
may have existed as early. For, though there is no inscriptional 
evidence for their existence before the middle of the second century 
A.D., there is no reason to suppose that they may not have been 
given in II. 991, ca. 200 B. C, the same as Eunostidai and Hy- 
poreia, which, though fortunately preserved in this inscription, 
are not mentioued again until the middle of the second century 
A.D. Secondly, nineteen demes, at least, were taken from 
the original tribes each of which contributed its share. 
Aiantis, though furnishing four demes, was probably not taxed 
more heavily than the rest, for three of them were very unim- 
portant ones. So, of the five demes of Antiochis, only one, 
Aigilia, was of an} 7 considerable size. Thirdly, of this whole 
number, only one, Semachidai, is found under its old tribe 
after Ptolemais was created. An explanation of this apparent 
irregularity was offered at p. 42. 



CHAPTER III. 
ATTAUS. 

§ i . History and Chronology. 

Attalis was created in honor of Attalos I, king of Pergamon, 
on the occasion of his visit to Athens in 200 B.C. This event is 
related in full by Polybios 1 and L,ivy. 2 There can be no doubt 
about the correctness of the date, for in chapter 5 of the same 
book, Iyivy says that the consuls for this year were P. Sulpicius 
Galba and C. Aurelius, stating at the same time that the year was 
552 A.u.c. , i.e., 202 B.C. From the Fasti Hellenici, however, we 
learn that these consuls officiated for the year 200 B.C. Attalis 
remained in the Athenian tribal system as long as that system 
continued. Its order in the official list was number twelve until 
125 A.D., when the introduction of Hadrianis pushed it forward 
to the thirteenth position. 

§ 2. Dkmks of Attalis. 

1. Agryle. (For discussion and table see under Antigonis, 
p. 6 f . ) . Besides the inscriptional evidence, we have the testimony 
of Hesychios, who states that Agryle belonged both to Erechtheis 
and Attalis. 

2. Ankyle. This deme was located on the slope of Mt. 
Hymettos as indicated by III. 61, spoken of under Agryle at 
p. 6. It was a double deme as shown by II. 991. As it occurs 
under Aigeis after the creation of Attalis, it is probable that only 
one part was transferred to Attalis. The inscriptions in which 
its tribe is indicated are as follows : 

1 Polyb. XVI. 25. 2 Uv. XXXI. 15. 



Attalis. 47 

A. Aigeis. 

IV. 2, 995 b, 4th Cent. B.C. II. 329, 272/1 B.C. 

II. 870, Mid of 4th Cent. B.C. II. 991, ca. 200 B.C. 

II. 872, 341/0 B. C. II. 471, 123/2 B.C. 

IV. 2, 1025 b, Before 307/6 B.C. II. 470, 1 19/8 B.C. 

II. 1 176, Before 307/6 B.C. IV. 2, 477 d, 108/7 B.C. 

II. 1023, ca. End of 4th Cent. II. 465, 105/4 B.C. 

B.C. III. 1092, 105/6 A.D. 

B. Attalis. 

II. 469, 107/6 B.C. 

3. Probalinthos. This deme was early a member of the Te- 
trapolis, which included besides this, Marathon, Oinoe, and 
Trikorynthos. 1 This fact in itself indicates the general quarter 
in which the deme was situated. Its proximity to Marathon is 
further attested by the discovery of Probalinthian monuments in 
the plain of Marathon. 2 Again,. Strabo's enumeration of the 
demes on the east coast of Attica in which Probalinthos is given 
after Brauron, Halai Araphenides, and Myrrhinous (= possibly 
Myrrhinoutta), and before Marathon, indicates that it was imme- 
diately south of Marathon, probably on the southern edge of the 
plain. Considering that this locality is so well attested, I cannot 
follow Loper in putting Probalinthos so far to the south as he does 
in order to bring it into connection with the coast trittys of 
Pandionis. Its tribal relation is illustrated by the accompanying 

table : 

A. Pandionis. 

I. 140, 407/6 B.C. II. 942, 329/8 B.C. 

II. 865, 4th Cent. B.C. II. 943, 325/4 B.C. 

IV. 2, 871 b, ca. Mid. of 4th IV. 2, 271 b, 301/0 B.C. 

Cent. B.C. II. 991, ca. 200 B.C. 

II. 1020, ca. 330 B.C. 

1 See Strabo VIII. 383. 
2 II. 1135, 1324, 2507. 



48 The Five Post-Kleisthenean Tribes. 

B. Attalis. 

II. 432, 182/1 B.C. II. 426, 1st Cent. B.C. 

II. 470, 1 19/8 B.C. III. 1040, 183/4 A.D. 

II. 469, 107/6 B.C. III. 1058, 216/7 A.D. 
II. 465, 105/4 B.C. 

4. Sounion. The location of this deme is so well known that 
it needs little comment. It is the site of the far-famed temple of 
Athena. The inscriptions which indicate its tribe are : 

A. Leontis. 

II. 864, 4th Cent. B.C. II. 943, 325/4 B.C. 

II. 1177, ca. Mid. of 4th Cent. IV. 2, 245 b, Before 307/6 B.C. 

B.C. II. 316, 283/2 B.C. 

II. 698, 349/8 B.C. II. 1040, Mid. of 3rd Cent. B.C. 

II. 172, ca. 336 B.C. II. 431, 220/19 B'C. 

B. Attalis. 

Bulletin 17, p. 146, 134/3 B.C. III. 1120, 150/1 A.D. 

II. 470, 119/8 B.C. III. 1121, 155/6 A.D. 

II. 469, 107/6 B.C. III. 1128, 164/5 A.D. 

II. 467, 102/1 B.C. III. 1 138, 174/5 A.D. 

II. 481, 45/4 B.C. III. 1040, 183/4 A.D. 

III. 1276, 23/2 B.C. III. 1 147, 190/1 A.D. 
III. 1091, 85/6 A.D. III. 1 160, 192/3 A.D. 
III. 1113, 143/4 A.D. III. 122, ? 

5. Agnous. 1 The site of Agnous is now marked by the modern 
village Markopoulo, as is evidenced by the numerous inscriptions 
found at this place. 2 The inscriptional evidence for its tribe is as 
follows : 

1 1 prefer this spelling to Hagnous from the probable derivation of the 
word from &ypos = a kind of willow. Compare Myrrhinous, Elaious, Phe- 
gous, etc. The form Hagnous later supplanted Agnous probably from 
association with dyvos 

2 Mitth. d. d. Arch. Inst. XII. p. 278, Nos. 161-165 ; also No. 1 11 p. 99 (found 
at Koropi near Markopoulo). 



Attalis. 49 

A. Akamantis. 

II. 867, 378/7 B.C. II. 942, 329/8 B.C. 

II. 789 a, 373/2 B.C. II. 943, 325/4 B.C. 

II. 1020, ca. 330 B.C. 

B. Attalis. 

II. 446, 155/4 B.C. HI. 1040, 183/4 A.D. 

III. 1092, 105/6 A.D. III. 1147, 190/1 A.D. 
III. 1113, 143/4 A.D. HI. 1160, 192/3 A.D. 
III. 1120, 150/1 A.D. III. 1163, 201/2 A.D. 
III. 1128, 164/5 A.D. III. 1171, 205/6 A.D. 
III. 1133, 170/1 A.D. III. 1058, 216/7 A.D. 
III. 1 138, 174/5 A.D. 

6. Turmeidai. L,6per assigns this deme to the city trittys of 
Oineis. The sole evidence for this is the fact that in IV. 2, 868 b, 
it is enumerated in connection with other denies of Oineis in or 
about the city. The tribal relation of Turmeidai is illustrated by 

the following table : 

A . Oineis. 

IV. 2, 868 b, ca. Mid. of 4th Cent. B.C. 

B. Attalis. 

Bulletin 17, p. 147, 122/1 B.C. III. 1138, 174/5 A.D. 

II. 467, 102/1 B.C. III. 1040, 183/4 A.D. 

III. 1128, 164/5 A.D. 

7. Athmonon. The location of Athmonon was on the site of 
the modern Marousi, a name derived from the cult of Artemis, 1 
who was worshiped here under the name Artemis Amarysia. 2 

This site is further attested by the discovery of three sepulchral 
steles found at or near Marousi. 3 Most important of all is the 
short inscription *Opo<s 'Apre/xtSo? re/xevovs 'A^apvo-tas/ found at 
Marousi. The scholiast on Aristoph. Peace, 190 states that the 
deme belonged to Kekropis and Attalis. This assertion is cor- 
roborated by the inscriptional evidence which is as follows : 

1 Compare Dionyso, for the ancient Ikaria, from the worship of Dionysos. 
2 Paus. I. 31, 3. 3 II. 1722, 1723, 1724. *I. 526. 



5° 



The Five Post-Kleisthenean Tribes. 



IV. 2, i b, 405/4 B.C. 
II. 803 d, 367/6 B.C, 
II. 172, ca. 336 B.C. 
II. 804 A, 334/3 B.C. 
IV. 2, 563 b, 334/3 B.C. 



A. Kekropis. 



II.943, 325/4 B.C. 
IV. 2, 269 b, 302/1 B.C. 
II. 330, 291/0 B.C. 
II. 338, 273/2 B.C. 
II. 859, 232/1 B.C. 






B. Attalis. 



II. 470, 1 19/8 B.C. 
II. 469, 107/6 B.C. 
II. 465, 105/4 B.C. 

II. 467, 102/1 B.C. 

III. 1276, 23/2 B.C. 
III. 1092, 105/6 A.D. 
III. 1120, 150/1 A.D. 



III. 1121, 155/6 A.D. 
III. 1133, 170/1 A.D. 
III. 1 138, 174/5 A.D. 
III. 1040, 183/4 A.D. 
III. 1163, 201/2 A.D. 
III. 1171, 205/6 A.D. 
III. 1058, 216/7 A - D - 






8. Oion (Dekeleikon). Besides inscriptional evidence, we have 
the testimony of Harpokration to the effect that there were two 
demes of this name, the one, Oion Kerameikon, of Leontis, the 
other, Oion Dekeleikon, of Hippothontis. His statement is based 
on the authority of Diodoros (Periegetes). As shown by the 
following table of inscriptions, the one which went over to Attalis 
was that belonging formerly to Hippothontis. It was located 
near Dekeleia, as shown by the testimony of Harpokration. 
Milchhofer would locate it southeast of Tatoi either at Bafn or 
at Keramidi. 

A. Leontis. 



II. 864,4th Cent. B.C. 

II. 960, ca. Mid. of 4th Cent. 

B.C. 
II. 1020, ca. 330 B.C. 

II. 1049, Latter half of 1st Cent. 

B.C. 

III. 1076, 22/3 A.D. 
III. 1280, 45/6 A.D. 



I. 1093, io 3/4 A.D. 

1092, 105/6 A.D. 

1113, 143/4 A.D. 

1 1 14, 146/7 A.D. 
1 124, 148/9 A.D. 

1 120, 150/1 A.D. 

1121, 155/6 A.D. 
1 132, 166/7 A - D - 



At talis. 51 

III. 1133, 170/1 A.D. III. 1176, ca. 219/20 A. D. 

III. 1138, 174/5 A.D. III. 1177, 219/20 A.D. 

III. 1142, ca. 180 A.D. III. 1231, ? 

III. 1 160, 192/3 A.D. 

B. Hippothontis . 

IV. 2, in b, 345/4 B.C. II. 944, ca. 325/4 B.C. 

II. 943, 325/4 B.C. 

C. At tat is. 

III. 1128, 164/5 A.D. III. 1054, 213/4 A.D. 
III. 1138, 174/5 A.D. III. 1177, 219/20 A.D. 

9. Korydallos. The location of this deme in close proximity 
to the Korydallos mountain is shown by a passage in Strabo, 1 
which states that above Cape Amphiale is a mountain called 
Korydallos, and the deme of the KopvSaXXets . 2 Its tribal relation, 
as shown by inscriptions, is : 

A. Hippothontis. 
II. 944, ca. 325/4 B.C. 

B. Attalis. 

II. 467, 102/1 B.C. III. 1138, 174/5 A.D. 

III. 1121, 155/6 A.D. III. 1040, 183/4 A.D. 

10. Oinoe. According to Harpokration, Oinoe was located 
near Marathon. It was one of the four demes forming the 
Tetrapolis. Milchhofer identifies it with the modern village, 
Ninoi, a short distance above Marathon, on the Charadra. The 
inscriptions which indicate its tribal relation are : 

A. Aiantis. 

II. 943, 325/4 B.C. II. 1013, ? 

II. 944, ca. 325/4 B.C. II. 859, 230/29 B.C. 

II. 236, 313/2 B.C. 

1 Strabo IX. 395. 2 Cf. Ath. IX. 390 a. 



52 The Five Post-Kleisthenean Tribes. 

B. Attalis. 1 

II. 471, 122/1 B.C. Bulletin 17, p. 147, 110/9 B.C. 

C. Hadrianis. 

III. 1113 a, 143/4 A.D. III. 1153, ca. 190 A. D. 
III. 1120, 150/1 A.D. III. 1163, 201/2 A.D. 

n. Atene. (See under Demetrias). Stephanos of Byzantion 
quotes Phrynichos as stating that the deme belonged to Attalis. 

12. Apollonieis. According to Stephanos of Byzantion this 
was a new deme added to Attalis. This is also shown by the in- 
scriptional evidence. It was named in honor of Apollonis, the 
wife of Attalos I, after whom the tribe was named. As it seems 
improbable that the Athenians really created a new deme, I think 
we have here simply an old deme re-named. Nothing is known in 
regard to its location. As it naturally occurs only under Attalis, 
the references will be omitted. 

Besides these twelve demes there are two more which require 
some notice : — namely, Trinemeia and Cholargos. These are 
mentioned once each under Attalis. 2 Inasmuch as they are 
found in their old tribes — Kekropis and Akamantis — throughout 
Roman times, I should treat these cases as merely sporadic and 
not indicative of tribal relation. An explanation may be found 
in the fact, that, in each instance, the name closes a long list of 
ephebes ; it may have been omitted under the proper tribe and 
added here. 



1 For these two references I am indebted to Mr. W. S. Ferguson. See his 
work entitled, The Athenian Secretaries, Cornell Studies, Vol. VII. pp. 57 
and 47. 

2 II. 467, io2|i B. C. and III. 1177, 219I20 A. D. 



Attalis. 53 

The composition of Attalis will then be as follows : — 





Dente. 


Original tribe. 


I. 


Agryle 


Erechtheis. 


2. 


Ankyle 


Aigeis. 


3- 


Probalinthos 


Pandionis. 


4- 


Sounion 


L,eontis. 


5- 


Agnous 


Akamantis. 


6. 


IVrmeidai 


Oineis. 


7- 


Athmonon 


Kekropis. 


8. 
9- 


Oion (Dekeleikon) 
Korydallos 


j- Hippothontis. 


o. 


Oinoe 


Aiantis. 


i. 


Ateue 


Antiochis. 


2. 


Apollonieis. 





From the foregoing discussion of the demes of Attalis, it is 
seen that to form the new tribe, demes were taken from 
each of the earlier tribes with the exception of Ptolemais, 
and even here, the exception may be only apparent. For 
had it furnished a deme, that deme would have been under 
Ptolemais only from 229 to 20a B.C., so that it is easily con- 
ceivable that no visible evidence to that effect might have been 
preserved. It is noteworthy that only three of the twenty-four 
demes of Ptolemais are mentioned with that tribe in these twenty- 
nine years. Secondly, that not one of the eleven old demes 
is ever found in its original tribe, unless it was a double 
deme, as is the case with Ankyle. 



CHAPTER IV. 

HADRIANIS. 

§ i . History and Chronology. 

In the autumn of 125 A.D. the Athenians were honored with a 
visit from the Emperor Hadrian. On this occasion they hailed 
him as their savior and founder, and bestowed upon him bound- 
less honor. The city with its art and culture had an irresistible 
attraction for him ; hence his visit was prolonged till the following- 
spring. It is due to the lavishness of this emperor, on this and 
later occasions, that some of the most interesting buildings of 
Athens were brought into being. Doubtless it was in recognition 
of these services, and at this particular time, that the new tribe 
was created and named in his honor. 1 They inaugurated the 
custom of reckoning the year from the first visit of Hadrian, as 
well as by the archon. It is from inscriptions thus doubly dated 
that we fix the year of that visit. Some of the most important 
are III. 735, 127/8 A.D., III. 1107, 128/9 A.D., and III. 1023, 
139/40 A.D., 3rd, 4th, and 15th years respectively after Hadrian's 
first visit to Athens. The tribe was given the seventh position in 
the tribal order. An explanation of this was offered under 
Ptolemais (see p. 32). 

§ 2. Demes of Hadrianis. 

1. Pambotadai. The exact site of this deme has not been 
determined. It is generally assigned to the coast trittys of 
Erechtheis and must be sought in the neighborhood of Iyamptrai. 
The inscriptions which indicate its tribe are : 

'See Gregorovius, Der Kaiser Hadrian, for a fuller account of this event. 
Compare also Dittenberger, Kaiser Hadrians Erste Anwesenheit in A then, 
Hermes VII. (1873), p. 213 ff. 






Hadrianis. 55 

A, Erechtheis. 

II. 338, 273/2 B.C. II. 481, 45/4 B.C. 

II. 991, ca. 200 B.C. II. 482, 38/7 B.C. 

II. 1038, 2nd Cent. B.C. III. 1019, 1st Cent. A.D. 

II. 470, 1 19/8 B.C. III. 1091, 85/6 A.D. 

II. 467, 102/1 B.C. 



B. Hadrianis. 

III. 1114, 146/7 A.D. III. 1163, 201/2 A.D. 

III. 1121, 155/6 A.D. III. 1281 a, ca. 212/3 A.D. 

III. 1137, 172-177 A.D. III. 1063, 218/9 A.D. 

2. Phegaia. The inscriptions which indicate the tribal relation 
of this deme are : 

A. Aigeis. 

IV. 2, 995 b, 4th Cent. B.C. II. 329, ca. 273/2 B.C. 
II. 870, Mid. of 4th Cent. B.C. II. 471, 123/2 B.C. 

II. 872, 341/0 B.C. II., 470, 119/8B.C. 

II. 804 A, 334/3 B.C. IV. 2, 477 d, 108/7 B.C. 

IV. 2, 245 c, Before 307/6 B.C. II. 469, 107/6 B.C. 

IV. 2, 1025 b, Before 307/6 B.C. II. 465, 105/4 B.C. 

II. 567, 289/8 B.C. III. 1076, 22/3 A.D. 

II. 338, 273/2 B.C. 

B. Pandionis. 

IV. 2, 251 b, 306/5 B.C. II. 991, ca. 200 B.C. 

C. Hadrianis. 

III. 1 1 14, 146/7 A.D. III. 1 153, ca. 190 A.D. 
III. 1137, 172-177 A.D. III. 1160, 192/3 A.D. 
III. 1142, ca. 180 A.D. III. 1163, 201/2 A.D. 

As the table indicates, the Phegaia which belonged to Hadrianis 
could well have been from either Aigeis or Pandionis, but as Oa 
was taken from Pandionis and there is no other deme in Hadrianis 
from Aigeis, we may safely assume that the Phegaia in question 



56 The Five Post-Kleisthenean Tribes. 

was from Aigeis. This one was located on the east coast of 
Attica, in the general region of Marathon. 1 There is an irregu- 
larity in reference to this deme which deserves some notice ; in 

III. 1 1 14, one of the ephebes of Hadrianis is called a ^yovcrio?, 
which should mean that he was a citizen of Phegous, a deme of 
Brechtheis. There is probably a confusion here between S^yaietfc 
and ®rjyov(nos, for in the same inscription an ephebe of Erechtheis 
is listed as ^ycuevs where we should expect ^hpyowrcos. 

3. Oa. The location is still a matter of dispute. Milchhofer 
thinks it occupied the site of the present Mercuri, but the 
provenience of sepulchral steles points rather to Velanideza, 
northeast of Spata. 2 The inscriptions which indicate its tribe 

A. Pandionis. 

II. 873, 4th Cent. B.C. II. 871, 348/7 B.C. 

II. 865, First half of 4th Cent. IV. 2, 871 b, Mid. of 4th Cent. 
B.C. B.C. 

II. 998, First half of 4th Cent. IV. 2, 269 b, 302/1 B.C. 
B.C. II. 316, 283/2 B.C. 

IV. 2, 645 b, 399/8 B.C. II. 991, ca. 200 B.C. 

B. Hadrianis. 

III. 1 1 14, 146/7 A.D. III. 1153, ca. 190 A.D. 
III. 1128, 164/5 A.D. III. 1 160, 192/3 A.D. 
III. 1041, ca. 180 A.D. 

4. Skambonidai. This was in or near the city as proved by 
the large metic population, attested by numerous inscriptions. 
Furthermore, from the mention of an agora in the deme 3 we 
should infer an urban or suburban site. Milchhofer locates it be- 
tween Karameikos and Melite including the so-called Theseion. 
It was Alkibiades' native deme. Its tribal relation is shown in 
the following table of inscriptions : 

1 Steph. Byz. s. v. f A\al. 
2 II. 2678, 2679, and 2682. 
are: 
3 1. 2, and IV. I. p. 4, N. 2. 



Hadrianis. 57 

A. Leontis. 

II. 864, 4th Cent. B.C. II. 983, 183/2 B.C. 

II. iooi, 4th Cent. B.C. II. 470, 119/8 B.C. 
II. 960, ca. Mid. of 4th Cent. II. 469, 107/6 B.C. 

B.C. II. 469, 106/5 B.C. 

II. 1020, ca. 330 B.C. II. 467, 102/1 B.C. 

II. 942, 329/8 B.C, II. 482, 38/7 B.C. 

II. 943, 325/4 B.C. III. 1091, 85/6 A.D. 

II. 991, ca. 200 B.C. III. 1092, 105/6 A.D. 

B. Hadrianis. 

III. 1128, 164/5 A.D. III. 1163, 201/2 A.D. 
III. 1 133, 170/1 A.D. 

5. Aphidna. ( See under Ptolemais ) . 

6. Eitea. •( See under Antigonis ). 

7. Thria. As the name indicates, this deme is associated with 
the Thriasian plain. The exact site is now occupied by the vil- 
lage Kalybia tes Chasias to the northeast of Eleusis. This is in- 
dicated by the sepulchral steles found at this place. x Its tribal re- 
lation is shown by the following table : 

A . Oineis. 

II. 997, 4th Cent. B.C. II. 470, 119/8 B.C. 

II. 677, 367/6 B.C. II. 467, 102/1 B.C. 

II. 868, 360/59 B.C. III. 1276, 23/2 B.C. 

II. 698, 350/49 B.C. III. 1005, 5/4 B.C. 

II. 701, 345/4 B.C. III. 1280, 45/6 A.D. 

II. 956, Latter half of 2nd Cent. III. 78, 93/4 A.D. 

B.C. 

B. Hadrianis. 

III. 1128, 164/5 A.D. III. 1133, 170/1 A.D. 
1 Kumanudes 561, 571, and 572. 



58 The Five Post-Kleisthenean Tribes. 

8. Daidalidai. According to Milchhofer, * the site of Daidalidai 
is to be sought in the large industrial center of antiquity to the 
northeast of Athens, near Marousi. He would identify it with 
either Brahami or Kalogresa ; more likely the latter, for it could 
then be brought into close relation with Phlya and Athmonon, 
denies of the same tribe and trittys. The name Daidalidai points 
to an artisan population. The inscriptional evidence of its tribe 
is : 

A. Kekropis. 

II. 660, 389/8 B.C. IV. 2, 563 b, 334/3 B.C. 

II. 1007, ca - Mid - of 4th Cent. II. 943, 325/4 B.C. 
B.C. 








B. Hadrianis. 


III. 1121, 155/6 A.D. 


III. 1133, 170/1 A.D. 


III. 1128, 164/5 A.D. 


III. 1163, 201/2 A.D. 



9. Blaious. Much uncertainty prevails in regard to the site of 
Klaious. Milchhofer, from the fact that in lists it is enumerated 
in close connection with Dekeleia, would place it near the site of 
Tatoi, ancient Dekeleia. Leake, from the similarity between 
Elaious and L,iossia, would identify them. Kastromenos thinks 
that it was north of Phaleron in the Athenian plain. The in- 
scriptional evidence for its tribal relation is : 

A. Hippothoyitis . 

II. 1006, ca. Mid. of 4th Cent. II. 944, ca. 325/4 B.C. 

B.C. II. 471, 123/2 B.C. 

II. 803 d, 374/3 B.C. II. 470, 1 19/8 B.C. 

II. 803 a, 342/1 B.C. II. 467, 102/1 B.C. 

B. Hadrianis. 

III. 1120, 150/1 A.D. III. 1041, ca. 180 A.D. 
III. 1039, 165-185 A.D. III. 1 172, 205/6 A.D. 
III. 1133, 170/1 A.D. 

1 Erlautender Text to Curtius und Kaupert's Karten von Attika II. p. 39. 



Hadrianis. 59 

In III. 1280, 45/6 A.D., Elaious is classed under Leontis. Dit- 
tenberger indicates that the restoration 'EA [e] o [wiot] here is un- 
certain. 

10. Trikorynthos. The site of Trikorynthos was at Kato-Souli, 
as indicated by the following facts : First, it formed a part of 
the Tetrapolis. Secondly, in his enumeration of the denies on the 
east coast of Attica, Strabo mentions Trikorynthos next after 
Marathon. 1 Thirdly, the legendary history indicates this general 
quarter of Attica. 2 lastly, there have been found at this place 
two sepulchral steles 3 relating to Trikorynthos. The inscriptions 
which indicate its tribe are : 

A. Aiantis. 

II. 1013, Latter half of 4th Cent. II. 859, 229/8 B.C. 

B.C. Bulletin 17, p. 146, 136/5 B.C. 

IV. 2, 767 b, 336/5- 333/2 B.C. II. 465, 105/4 B.C. 

II. 943, 325/4 B.C. II. 467, 102/1 B.C. 

II. 944, ca. 325/4 B.C. II. 481, 45/4 B.C. 

II. 315, 283/2 B.C. II. 482, 38/7 B.C. 
IV. 2, 385 b, 237/6 B.C. 



B. Hadrianis. 

III. 1114, 146/7 A.D. III. 1039, 165-185 A.D. 

III. 1121, 155/6 A.D. III. 1142, ca. 180 A.D. 

III. 1133, 170/1 A.D. 

11. Besa. The location of Besa is quite accurately indicated by 
a passage in Xenophon, 4 which informs us that it was situated on 
an eminence between Anaphlystos and Thorikos. Fortunately 
the site of these two demes is known, for we thus have a sure 
guide for locating Besa. Its site is probably now marked by the 
mountain Kamaresa and the village below of the same name. 
Here in ancient times was a mining center, as is shown by re- 
mains discovered in this immediate vicinity. This agrees with 

^trab. IX. 399. 2 Strab. VIII. 377. 3 II. 2592 and 2601. 
4 de vectigal. IV. 43. 



60 The Five Post-Kleisthenean Tribes. 






the evidence afforded by II. 782 where a mine is mentioned as 
situated in Besa. Its tribal relation as shown by inscriptions is 
as follows : 

A. Antiochis. 

II. 677, 367/6 B.C. II. 698, 350/49 B.C. 

II. 869, ca. Mid. of 4th Cent. II. 944, ca. 325/4 B.C. 

B.C. III. 1092, 105/6 A.D. 

B. Hadrianis. 

III. 1113, 143/4 A.D. HI. 1039, 165-185 A.D. 
III. 1113 a, 143/4 A.D. HI- I:[ 53> ca - 190 A.D. 
III. 1 1 14, 146/7 A.D. III. 1 160, 192/3 A.D. 
III. 1 124, 148/9 A.D. III. 1 180, ca. 212/3 A.D. 
III. 1121, 155/6 A.D. III. 1177, 219/20 A.D. 
III. 1128, 164/5 A - D - HI- H97> 240/1 A.D. 

12. Oinoe. (See under Attalis). 

13. Antinoeis. This deme, in name at least, dates only from 
the creation of Hadrianis. It was named in honor of Antinoeis, 
the favorite of Hadrian. Milchhofer infers from the numerous 
occurrences of Antinoeis in late Athenian inscriptions, and the 
absence of Aigilia, that it represented simply the latter re-named 
or the union of several denies. As it naturally is found only 
under Hadrianis, it is unnecessary to give the inscriptional 
evidence. 

The demes of Hadrianis may be thus tabulated : — 





Deme. 


Original tribe. 


I. 


Pambotadai 


Erechtheis. 


2. 


Phegaia 


Aigeis. 


3- 


Oa 


Pandionis. 


4- 


Skambonidai 


Eeontis. 


5- 


Aphidna 


Ptolemais. 


6. 


Eitea 


Akamantis. 


7- 


Thria 


Oineis. 


8. 


Daidalidai 


Kekropis. 


9- 


Elaious 


Hippothontis. 


10. 


Trikorynthos 


Aiantis. 


11. 


Besa 


Antiochis. 


12. 


Oinoe 


Attalis. 


13- 


Antinoeis. 





Hadi'ianis. 61 

From this examination of the demes of Hadrianis it is apparent 
that, to form the new tribe, the Athenians took one deme 
from each of the preexisting tribes, not excepting Ptole- 
mais and Attalis. The regularity is here more striking than 
that observed in the case of the other new tribes. Secondly, 
that not one of these twelve demes occurs under its old 
tribe after Hadrianis came into existence in 125/6 A.D. 



To summarize the conclusions reached in the preceding pages 
we find : — 

(1) Antigonis and Demetrias were created in the official year 
308/7 B.C., probably w T ell towards its close. The date usually 
given for their first representation in the prytany and on other 
boards is 306/5 B.C. It has been, I think, conclusively shown 
that they were so represented in 307/6 B.C. 

(2) The creation of Ptolemais occurred in 229 B.C., and is 
thus closely associated with the intervention of Ptolemy Euergetes 
in favor of the Athenians which took place in that year. The 
motive for its institution is accordingly analogous to that which 
brought Antigonis and Demetrias, Attalis, and Hadrianis into 
existence. 

(3) None but divided demes belonged to more than one tribe 
at the same time ; for, out of sixty-five demes which are classed 
under the five new tribes, only five, — Agryle, Ankyle, Lamptrai, 
Paiania, and Semachidai, — are found belonging to their earlier 
tribes after the institution of the new ones to which they were 
severally transferred. Of these five, four, Agryle, Ankyle, 
Lamptrai, and Paiania, are recorded in inscriptions as being 
double demes. There were doubtless several others divided in 
similar manner, of which division, however, we have no record. 
It has, therefore, seemed to me that in Semachidai also we have 
such a divided deme. The question of Trinemeia and Cholargos 
has been discussed at p. 52. 

(4) In the redistribution of the demes to give Ptolemais, 
Attalis, and Hadrianis each its requisite number, the plan was 



62 The Five Post-Kleisthenean Tribes. 

apparently to take one deme from each of the original tribes. In 
a few instances, (and here the exception may have a natural ex- 
planation) mentioned in their proper place, this plan was deviated 
from in that more than one deme was taken from the same tribe, 
or a post-Kleisthenean tribe did not furnish its complement to a 
tribe created subsequently. This fact, however, does not 
materially affect the deduction. 

The denies utilized in the formation of Antigonis and Demetrias 
were drawn from the first half of the list of tribes, for the former, 
and from the latter half, for the latter. The scheme followed, 
though not now revealed in full, was seemingly to transfer two 
demes from each of the earlier ten tribes. 

(5) In both instances where a thirteenth tribe was added to 
the list, the official order of that tribe was number seven. This 
position corresponds to that of the additional month in the inter- 
calary years. What the real significance of this fact is I am un- 
certain. I suspect, however, that it is nothing more than this ; 
prior to the addition of a thirteenth tribe there had been an exact 
correspondence in number of tribes, prytanies, and months ; as 
the continuity in the list of months was broken every intercalary 
year by the insertion of a month in the seventh place, so the idea 
would naturally suggest itself of breaking the preexisting con- 
tinuity in the list of tribes by the insertion of the new one in the 
same place. 

(6) There were thirteen tribes during the period 229-200 B.C., 
Antigonis and Demetrias being continued after Ptolemais was 
added. 



APPENDIX A. 



Official Order of Tribes. 



The official order of the Attic tribes with the changes produced 
by the introduction of new tribes is shown by the following tabu- 
lation. 



tribes 



d 





w 


„ M 


t^-M VO 






CO 


t^ 


C) 


o 


lO 


CO 



t^ ON 

O CS 

CO CS 



I. 
II. 
III. 

IV. 



Antigonis, 

Demetrias, 

Krechtheis, 

Aigeis, 

Pandionis, 

Leontis, 

Ptolemais, . • 

Akamantis, 

Hadrianis, 

Oineis, 

Kekropis, 

Hippothontis, ' VIII. 

Aiantis, j IX. 

Antiochis, X. 

Attalis i . . . 



V. 



I. 
II. 

III. 

IV. 

V. 

VI. 



a 

PQ 



a 



O) 



VII. 



I. 

II. 
III. 
IV. 

V. 

VI. 

VII. 

VIII. 






VI. 

VII. 



I VIII. 

IX. 

X. 

XI. 
? XII. 



IX. 

X. 

XI. 

XII. 

XIII. 



I. 
II. 
III. 

IV. 
V. 
VI. 



VII. 
VIII. 

IX. 

X. 

XI. 
XII. 



•'2 

"To « 

CN O 



I. 
II. 
III. 

IV. 

V. 

VI. 
VII. 
VIII. 

IX. 

X. 

XI. 
XII. 
XIII. 



APPENDIX B. 






IylSTS OF THE DKMES OF EACH TrIBK. 



In the following lists the denies of each tribe and their demotika 
are given as far as at present determinable. From the evidence 
of II. 991 we may infer that they are approximately all that were 
in existence. The explanation of the signs is as follows : * is 
used to indicate that the deme was transferred to Antigonis ; f to 
Demetrias ; J to Ptolemais ; § to Attalis ; || to Hadrianis. In 
the case of a double deme the sign is added to the first one when 
it can not be determined which part was transferred. 

Erkchthfis. 

Demotika. Demes. Demotika. 

'AypvXyjOev. 8. Aap,7rrpai (kolO. )* Aapjrr pevs . 

'AypvXr}6ev. 9. AapurTpat (inrev. ) Aapurr pevs . 

'Avayvpdo-Los.IO. IIa/x/3<oTaSai 1 1 Hap,/3oiTa.8rj<s. 

Evwvu/xevs. II. Hepyaarj (kolO. ) HepyacrfjOev . 

©rjpaKevs. 12. Hepyaa-t] (weV. ) ILepyacrfjOev. 



Demes. 
I. AypvX-i] (ko.^.)*^ 
' Ay pvXrj (v7T€v.^) 
Avayvpovs 
Evwvv/xov 



®r)p,aKos 

K^Sot 

l£r)<f>L(Tid 



K^icnevs. 



13. 2v/?pi8ai 

14. Qrjyovs 



2,vj3pL?>r)s. 
&Y)y ova los. 



AlGElS. 



' Ay KvXrj (kolO. ) 
'AyKvXi] (vtt£v.^) 



'AXai (jApacprjV. ) AXatev<s. 



I. 
2. 

3- t 

4. 'Apa<f>rjv 

5. Barrj 

6. TapyrjTTos * 
y . Aidp,eia 

8 . 'EpiKaa 



* Ay kvXy)6€.v. 
'AyKvXrjOev. 



1 2 . 'iwviSai 

13. KoAAvtos 

14. KoA.<ovos 

15. KvSaj/rtSai I 

1 6 . M.vppwovTT<x 



9- 
IO. 
II. 



'Ep^ta 
'Eorrtata 
'I/capia * 



Apac^vios. 
Barrel/. 
Ta/oy^rTto?. 

Aiop,eevs, 1 7 . 'Orpvvrj 

Ato/xetevs. 1 18. IlXw^aa. 

'EpiK€€VS, 

'EptKaevs. 2 

'Ep^tevs. 19. Teiflpas 

'Eo-rtatd^ev. 20. ^rjyaia || 

'iKaptevs. 21. ^tAatSat 



KoAAvtcus. 

€K KoAcOVOV. 3 

KuSavr 1877s. 

€K MvpptVOTJT- 

T779. 
'Orpwevs. 
IIAto^evs, 

IIA<O0€i€VS ? 

IIAwfoevs. 4 
Tet^pao-ios. 
^yatevs. 
^>tAat'8r;s. 



1 Also Aiofiaievs late. 
3 Rarely KoXwi^tfei'. 



2 Also 'E/»/ccuetfs late. 

4 nXwdiadev, Roman times. 



Lists of the Denies of Each Tribe. 
Pandionis. 



65 





Denies. 


Demotika. 




Denies. 


Demotika. 


I. 


'AyyeAr^ 


'AyyeA^flev. 


8. 


TLauxvLa (kci0. )* Ilatavteus. 


2. 


Tparjs 


Tpaevs. 1 


9- 


Ilaiavia (t>7reV. ] 


Ilatavtevs. 


3- 


KaAeVea 


KaAcTeevs. 


]0. 


Ilpao-iai 


Ilpacrteijs. 


4- 


Kov^vAi; J 


Kov^uAr^ev, 


II. 


Upo/3d\iv0os § 


IIpo/?aAtcrtos. 






Kov&jAtSr/s. 


12. 


Sretpta 


Sretpteus. 


5- 


KvSa#)?vatov * 


KuSa^vaievs 


•13- 


$r^yata 


^rryaievs. 


6. 


KvOrjpos 


Kv^pptos, 
Kv^pio?. 2 


14. 


*Oa, *Oa || 


v Oa0ev, "Oatfev, 
Oia0ev, 'Oaiev?, 3 


7- 


M.vppLvovs 


Muppivovo-ios 






'Oae^s. 3 




1 Hypothetical. 2 


Mostly Roman 


3 


At the time of ' ' Cockney ' ' Greek. 






IyEONTlS. 




1. 


AWaXihaL * 


AlBoXihy)^. 


12. 


TLrj\rjKe<s 


iljx^. 1 


2. 


AAip-ovs 


AAip.07XTlOS. 


13. 


IIorap,os (kclO.] 


IIoTapios. 


3- 


AeipaSiwTcu * 


AeipaSiooT^s. 


14. 


IIoTap,os {yirev. 


) Uordpaos. 


4- 


'EkoA - ^ J 


'EKaA^ev. 


15- 


IIorap,os 


HoTOLfJLLOS 


5- 


Eu7ruptSat 


lEiVTrvptSr)^. 


- 




(AapaSiwT^s). 


6. 


Karros 


Kryrrto?. 


16. 


'%Kap,(3(DVL$(U || 


%Kap,/3oiViBri^ . 


7- 


KoAwvr; 


KoAo>i^^€v. 


17- 


^Sowiov § 


^owieus. 


8. 


KpCD7TtSai 


Kpa)7rt8^5. 


18. 


'Y/3aSai 


•Y/Sa&ys. 


9- 


AevKovor) 


AeuKOvoevs. 


19. 


Qpeappoi 


<£>peappios. 


0. 


Olov (Kepap,eiKov^ 


e£ Oiau. 


20. 


XoAAetSat 


XoAAeiSr??. 2 


1. 


IlaioviSai 


rEatovtS^s. 









1 Rarely e/c n^X-^/cwj/. 



Rarely XoXX^S^s or XoXX^Stjs. 



I. 


'Ayvovs § 


'Ayvovcrtos. 


8. 


Ke^>aA^ 


Ke^aA^ev. 


2. 


EtpeortScu 


EtpecrtSr;?, 


9- 


KtKwva 


KtKwvevs. 






'Epeo-iS?;?. 1 


IO. 


Kvpret8at 


Kl>pT£tS?7S. 


3- 


Eirea * || 


EiTeatos. 2 


II. 


IIopos 


Ildptos. 


4- 


"Eppo? 


"Epp-eios. 


12. 


IIpdcr7raATa J 


npo(T7raArt05 


5- 


©OpiKOS 


©opc'xios. 


13. 


ZS^TTOS 


^^>-^TTt05. 


6. 


'IcfjiaTidSaL 


'i^tcrTtaSry?. 3 


14. 


XoAapyds 


XoAapyevs. 


7- 


KepapetKos 


€K Kepap,eW 









1 'H^eo-tS^s in Roman times. 2 Also 
also 'H0i(TTtd§7js and '13.(paicrTLd8Tjs. 



'Ireaios in Roman times. 



Written 



Note. — Horafibs is mentioned once (II. 469) under Akamantis. 



66 



The Five Post-Kleisthenean Tribes. 







OlNKIS. 






D ernes. 


Demotika. Demes. 


Demotika. 


I. 

2. 

3- 
4- 
5- 
6. 

7- 
8. 


'Axapvac 
BouraSai | 
J?nrLKr)<f>i<ria 
©pla || 

l7T7roro/>iaSat "j" 
Ko^toKtSat "j" 
Aa/aaSai 
Aovatd 


^ A^apvev<s . 9. "Or; 
BouraS^s. 

ETTtK^^lVtOS. 

®PLol<tlos. IO. IIepi#oiSai 
'iTnroTOfJLdSrjs . 1 1 . IlreXca 
Ko&oKufys. 12. TvpfxuSat § 
Aa/aaS^s . * 13. <I>uA.^ 
Aovcrievs. 

1 Rarely iK AaKia8Qp. 

Kekropis. 


Ot^ev. 
IlepidoiS^s. 
IlTeXeacrtos. 
TvpfJietBrjs. 
<&v\daLOs. 


i. 

2. 

3- 
4- 

5- 
6. 


"AOfJLOVOV § 

Ai£a>v>7 

'AAa/ (Ai^toi/iKai 
AaiSaAiScu || 
E7rtetKt8at 
MeAiVr? f 


'AO/xovevs. 8. TLiOos 
At^wvev?. 9. ^v7raX>yrTos 
') AAaievs. 

AaiSaAiS^s. IO. Tpivifxaa 

'E^iei/a'S^s. 1 

MeAireus. II. <£Ava £ 


ttiOevs. 2 

^v/SaXrJTTios* 
Tpivepieevs, 

T/oive/Aeievs. 4 
<I>Avevs. 



! 



7. avTrerrj f Bwrercuajv. 

1 Also 'E7rei/c/5T7s and 'EiriKeidris in Roman times. 2 Also IIiT0etfs and Ili0eei/s 
in Roman times. 3 Rare. 4 Rarely Tpiveixaieijs and T/cuvo^cuei/s. 

Note. — In II. 944, ca. 325/4 B.C. KUvwa is mentioned under Kekropis. 







HlPPOTHONTlS. 




I. 


'Atyvia 


'A^vtevs. 11. 


©up,aiTa8ai 


©vp-atraS^s. 


2. 


c Afjia£dvTeia 


'A/xa^-avrevs, 1 2 . 


KeipiaSai 


KetptaS^s. 






e A//,a£avT€6€vs. 13. 


K01A77 "j" 


ck KotA^s, 


3- 


AfjLVfxu)vrj 


'AfxvfJLCDveevs, 




KotAevs. 1 






'A/xv/xovatevs. 14. 


Ko7rpos 


Ko7rpetos, 


4. 


Avaicaia 


AvaKatevSj 




Ko7rptos. a 






'Ava/caevs. 15. 


KopuSaAAos § 


KopvSaAAevs. 


5- 


AvpiSai 


AvpiSrjs. 16. 


O11/077 | 


Oivatos. 


6. 


'AxepSovs 


'A^epSovcrtos. 17. 


Olov (AcKeAetKov 


)§ ^ Olov. 


7. 


AcKcAeia 


Ae/ceAeevs, 18. 
AeKeAeievs. 


Iletpateu? 


ILapaievs , 
Iletptevs, 3 


8. 


'EAcuoi)? || 


EAaiovoaos, 




Ileipcvs. 3 






'EAeovoros. 19. 


noA 


? 


9- 


'EAevtris 


'EAewivios. 20. 


2<cfiev$aXrj 


XcfrevSaXrjOev , 


10. 


'EpoiaSai 


'EpoiaS^s. 








1 Rare. 


2 Roman. 


3 Roman and 


rare. 



Lists of the Denies of Each Tribe. 



6 7 



AlANTlS. 





Denies. 


Demotika. 




Denies. 


Demotika. 


I. 


v A<£i8va | || 


'A<£iratos. 


6. 


UepptSat | 


UeppiSr}?. 


2. 


©upyam'Sai J 


®vpyu)vi8r}<; . 


7- 


'Pa/zvovs 


'Pap-vovonos. 


3- 


Kt'/caAa 


KvKaXevs. 


8. 


Tira/a'Sat £ 


TiTa/a'S^s. 


4- 


Mapa#tov 


Mapa#a)vios . 


9- 


TpiKopvv#os || 


Tpi/copwios. 


5- 


O1V077 § || 


Otvatos. 


10. 


^a<f>t<s 


^a<f>tBr]S . 






Antiochis. 




1. 


AiyiAia \ 


AiyiAieus. 


11. 


KoAwvry J 


KoAwv^ev. 3 


2. 


A\(D7T€Krj 


'AAco7reK^ev, 


12. 


Kpiwa 


Kpiooevg. 






AAa)7reKeievs. 


x i3- 


AeKKOv 


? 


3- 


'A/JLcftLTpOTTiq 


' Ap,c£ trpoirrj Oev 


.14. 


AevKoirvpa 


AevK07rvp 


4- 


Avd<f>\v(TTOS 


'AvacfiXvcrTLOs. 


15- 


MeAatvai £ 


MeAatvevs. 


5- 


'Arrjvr) f§ 


'Arrjvevs. 


16. 


IlaAA^vr; 


IlaAATyvevs. 


6. 


B^o-a || 


^Brjcratevs . 


17. 


IlevTeAr; J 


IlevTeA^ev. 


7- 


EtTea 


Etreato?. 2 


18. 


2i7/Aa^t8at (/ca0. 


?) t 2r//xa X i8r7S. 


S. 


'EpyaSets 


Epya8ei;s. 


19. 


Siy/xa^tSat (yirev, 


. ?) ^rjfxaxtSr)^. 


9- 


'EpoiaSai 


EpoiaS^s. 


20. 


<3>uppiv?70-iot 


QvppLvrjcrios, 


0. 


©opat J 


©opcueus. 






$?vpvrj(TLO<s. 



1 Uncommon. 2 Also 'Irecuos in Roman times. 3 Not found in the singular. 

NOTE. — In III. 1138, 174/5 A.D., under Antiochis there are left the first two 

letters of a deme name, as, Ae . Furthermore, in III. 11 47, 190/1 A.D., 

we read under Antiochis Aeu/co and in III. 1163, 201/2 A.D. Aeu/c. So in III. 
1034, ca. 170 A.D., there is left Aev- with the remainder of the word indis- 
tinct. Dittenberger evidently thinks that these are for I,eukonoe. It seems 
to me that they might well stand for Leukopyra. 







Antigonis. 




I. 

2. 


AypvXrj 
Ai0aAiScu 


Ay pvXrjOev. 6. I/capia £ 
AWa\i$r}<;. 7. KuSa^vaiov 


I/capievs. 


3- 
4- 
5- 


TapyrjTTos 
AeipaSicoTai 
Eirea || 


TapyrJTTLOS. 8. AaparTpai 
AeipaStwr^s. 9. TLaiavia (kolO. ?) 
Etreatos. 

Demetrias. 


AapV7rrpevs . 
Ilaiai/ievs. 


1. 
2. 
3- 

4- 


'Arrjvri § 
©opai 

'l7r7TOTop.a8at 
Ko#coKi8ai 


Arrjvevs. 5. Kot'Ary 
©opatevs. 6. MeXtTY) 
l7T7roTop,a87y5. 7. 'avirir-q 


eK K01A77S. 

MeAtTev?. 

Sv7reratwv. 



Note. — Possibly 'Ayvovs should be put here. 



68 



The Five Post-Kleisthenean Tribes. 







PTOI.KMAIS. 






Denies. 


Demotika. 




Demes. 


Demotika. 


I. 


AiyiXia 


AiyiXievs. 


13- 


KovOvXrj 


K.ov6vXr}6ev, 


2. 


AKvatets 


'A/aiaievs. 






Kov^vXtS^s. 


3- 


*A<£i8va || 


'A<£i8vaios. 


14. 


Kv8avTi8at 


KuSavT 1877s. 


4- 


Bepevi/aSai 


BepeviK 1877s. 


15. 


MeXaivai' 


MeXaiveus. 


5- 


Boura8ai 


BovraS^s. 


16. 


Olvor} 


Oivaios. 


6. 


E/caX?7 


'JZiKaXfjOev. 


17- 


TLevreXr) 


IlevTeX^ev. 


7- 


Ewoo-ri8ai 


Etjvoctt 1877s. 


18. 


HeppiScu 


HeppiSrjs . 


8. 


©77jU-aKOS 


©>7/xa/<€^s. 


19. 


TLeraXiaL 


IleTaXtevs. 


9- 


®vpy(i)vtSaL 


©vpywvutys. 


20. 


YlpoarraXTa 


IIpocr7raXTto$. 


IO. 


iKapta 


iKaptevs . 


21. 


%rjpxi.-)(ihai 


^/xa^a^s. 


ii. 


KXa> [7rt8atJ 


KXco [77-18775] 


22. 


Tira/a'Sai 


TtraKt8^s. 


12. 


KoXtov^ 


KoXtoVT^ey. 


23. 


e Y7roj/3eta 


e Y7T(opeta^€i/. 








24. 


&Xvd 


<I>Xv£VS. 






Attains. 




I. 


AyKvXrj 


'AyKvXrjOev. 


7- 


JLopvSaXXos 


KopvSaXXevs. 


2. 


'Ayi/ovs 


' Ayvovmos . 


8. 


Olvor) || 


Oiraios. 


3- 


'AypvX^ 


'AypvXrjOev. 


9- 


Olov ( Ae/ceXeiKoj/ 


e£ Olov. 


4- 


*A#/xoi/ov 


'AO/aovcvs. 


10. 


II/3o/3aXiv0os 


IIpo/3a.Xio-ios. 


5- 


'A7ToXX(Jl)Vt€6S 


* ATToXXitiVLtW 


MI. 


^owtov 


Sowievs. 


6. 


Arrjvr) 


Arrjvevs. 


12. 


Tvpp.ciSaL 


Tvp/xetS^s. 






Hadrianis. 




lm 


'AvTLvoels 


AvTuvoevs. 


8. 


Olvor] 


Oivaios . 


2. 


"Acf>i8va 


'A<£i8vchos. 


9- 


Hap,/3o)TdSat 


IIa/x/3a>Ta877S. 


3- 


B^cra 


Brycratevs. 


10. 


^Kap./3o)Vib\x,L 


'%Kap,fia)VL$r)<; . 


4- 


AaiSaXi8ai 


AaiSaXufys . 


11. 


TpLKopvvOos 


TptKopvo-tos. 


5- 


Eirea 


EtTeatos, 


12. 


^rjyata 


^ycuevs. 






'Irecuos. 


13- 


v Oa, "Oa 


v Oa0ev, 


6. 


'EXaiovs 


EXaioixrios. 






*Oa0ev. 


7- 


©pia 


©piacrios. 












APPENDIX C. 



Bibliography. 

Beloch, Julius. Die Errichtung der Phyle Ptolemais. Neue 
Jahrbiicher fur classische Philologie 129 (1884), p. 481 ff. 

Buck, Carl D. Discoveries in the Attic Deme of Ikaria. 
Papers of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, V. 
(1892), pp. 43-134- 

Curtius, E. und Kaupert, J. A. Karten von Attika. Berlin 
(1894). 

Dittenberger, Wilhelm. Untersuchungen iiber die uach 
Kleisthenes neu errichteten attischen Phylen. Hermes IX. 
(1875), p. 385 ff. 

Dittenberger, Wilhelm. Kaiser Hadrians erste Anwesenheit 
in Athen. Hermes VII. (1873), p. 213 ff. 

Ferguson, W. S. The Athenian Secretaries. Cornell Studies 
in Classical Philology No. VII. (1898). 

Gardner, P. and Jevons, F. B. A Manual of Greek An- 
tiquities (1895), pp. 449 ff. and 458 ff. 

Gilbert, Gustav. Handbuch der griechischen Staatsalter- 
thiimer. Zvveite Auflage (1893), P- 222 ff- 

Gilbert, Gustav. Zur Geschichte der Zwolfzahl der attischen 
Plrylen. Philologus 39 (1880), p. 373 ff. 

Gow, James. A Companion to School Classics (1888), pp. 
91, 92, 97, 98, and 106-8. 

Gregorovius, Ferdinand. Der Kaiser Hadrian. Stuttgart 
(1884), Ch. 12. 

Hanriot, C. Recherches sur la ' Topographie des Denies de 
l'Attique. Paris (1853). 

Haussoulier, B. Ea Vie municipale en Attique. Paris (1883). 



yo The Five Post-Kleisthenean Tribes. 

Hermann, K. F. Lehrbuch der griechischen Staatsalter- 
tiimer, sechste Auflage von Victor Thumser (1889), §§ 71 [in] 
and 135 [175]. 

Hitzig, Hermann and Bliimner, Hugo. Des Pausanias 
Beschreibung von Griechenland. Berlin (1896). Especially 
notes to I. 5, 5 and I. 6, 8. 

Kastromenos, P. Die Demen von Attika. Leipzig (1888). 

Kirchner, J. E. Die Zusamniensetzung der Phylen Antigonis 
und Demetrias. Rheinisches Museum 47 (1892), p. 550 ff. 

Kohler, Ulrich. Ein Verschollener. Hermes VII. (1873), 
p. 1 ff. 

Leake, W. M. Die Demen von Attika (German Translation 
by A. Westermann). Braunschweig (1840). 

Lolling, H. G. Neuer Grenzstein der Artemis Amarysia. 
Mitth. d. d. Arch. Inst, in Athen 5 (1880), p. 289 ff. 

Loper, R. Die Trittyen und Demen Attikas. Mitth. d. d. 
Arch. Inst, in Athen 17 (1892), p. 319 ff. 

Mahaffy, J. P. The Empire of the Ptolemies. London (1895). 

Milchhofer, A. Untersuchungen iiber die Demenordnung des 
Kleisthenes. Berlin (1892). 

Milchhofer, A. Antikenbericht aus Attika. Mitth. d. d. 
Arch. Inst, in Athen 12 (1887), p. 81 ff. and p. 277 ff. ; 13 
(1888), p. 337 ff. 

Milchhofer, A. Erlautender Text to Cnrtius und Kaupert's 
Karten von Attika. Berlin (1 881-1895). 

Milchhofer, A. Articles Agryle, Aigilia, Aithalidai, Aky- 
aieis, Ankyle, Antinoeis, Aphidna, Apollonieis, Atene, Athmo- 
non, and Attika, in Pauly-Wissowa Real-Encyclopadie, Vols. I. 
(1894) and II. (1896). 

Ross, Ludwig. Die Demen von Attika. Halle (1846). 

Sandys, J. E. Aristotle's Constitution of Athens. London 
(1894), Ch. 21 and Notes. 

Sauppe, H. De demis urbauis Athenarum. Lipsiae 
(1846). 

Schafer, C. Die attische Trittyeneiutheilung. Mitth. d. d. 
Arch. Inst, in Athen 5 (1880), p. 85 ff. 



Bibliography. 7 I 

Scherling, Carolus. Quibus rebus singulorum Atticae pago- 
rum incolae operam dederint. Leipziger Studien XVIII. (1897), 

P . iff. 

Schoffer, V. von. Article Archontes, in Pauly-Wissowa 
Real-Encyclopadie 11.(1896), p. 565 ff. 

Seyffert, Oskar. Articles Phyle and Demos, in Dictionary of 
Classical Antiquities. English Translation (1891). 

Szanto, Emil. Die Kleisthenischen Trittyen. Hermes 
XXVII. (1892), p. 312 ff. 

Topffer, J. Articles Antigonis and Attalis, in Pauly-Wissowa 
Real-Encyclopadie I. (1894), p. 2405 and II. (1896), p. 2156 f. 

Unger, Georg Fr. Griechische Zeitrechung. Handbuch der 
classischen Alterthumswissenschaft, herausgegeben von Iwan 
Miiller. Zweite Auflage Vol. I. (1892), p. 715 ff. 

Usener, H. Chronologische Beitrage. Rheinisches Museum 
34(1879), p. 388 ff. 

Wachsmuth, Curt. Die Stadt Athen im Alterthum. 
Zweiter Band, erste Abtheilung (1890), p. 231 ff. 

Wide, S. Aphidna in Nordattika. Mitth. d. d. Arch. Inst, 
in Athen 21 (1896), p. 385 ff. 

Young, C. H. Erchia, a deme of Attica. Columbia College 
dissertation . New York ( 1 89 1 ) . 

Young, C. H. Gargettus, an Attic Deme. Classical Studies 
in Honour of Henry Drisler (1894), P- 2 75 ff- 



^D -1,0. 3 




<f ^ * • - ° A 





J *<, 



0° ** 








* o 
















7". 





4 V •V -> "*^f'S><«^ 





^ 



i • o „ "Tp* 



V » 



- x/ :m& w ••; 






'^CV 



iT o, 





'^cv 




°- / -^r X 










r oK 




s v ^LVL'+ ^ aP *L # °' ^ v * s< 




*e^„« 



< 



«°«. 



<<y wVj^^' 13 ^ V **L1% ^ <<T » y *°* "*> V * S VL' 



V .^ ^ 



